Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-08/09/2004 �QSVFFO(�►C® MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS a�0 Gy P.O. Box 1179 JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE C Southold,NY 11971 Chair y ' Z OFFICE LOCATION: RICHARD CAGGIANO Gy • �� Town Hall Annex WILLIAM'J.CREMERS �fQl �a� 54375 State Route 25 KENNETH L.EDWARDS (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR Southold,NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES August 9, 2004 6:00 p.m. Present were: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson Richard Caggiano, Member William J. Cremers, Member Kenneth L. Edwards, Member Martin H. Sidor, Member Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner . Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer Victor L'Eplattenier; Site Plan Reviewer Carol Kalin, Secretary SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Chairperson Woodhouse: Welcome to the August 9th meeting of the Southold Town Planning.Board. Our first order of business is to set Monday, September,13, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS We have a number of public hearings tonight. We're going to ask that if you'd like to address the Board when it is time to do so, when you please step up to the microphone, you'll find a piece of paper that says Transcript Information and a pen. We ask that you write your name and address, if you would. We're having difficulty in transcribing the hearing notes and, also, we will not be able to recognize you if you stand where you are seated in the audience. You need to come to the microphone or else we will not be able to pick it up and because this is a legally recorded meeting, we would need you to do that. 6:00 p.m. - Papson, Vicky-This proposal is to set off a 2.29 acre lot (1) from a 5.43 acre parcel (Lot 2) in the R-40 Zoning District. The property is located on the south side of Main Rd, +/- 400' east of Kayleigh's Court, in East Marion. SCTM#1000-31-13-7 Is there anyone here to speak on this application? Bob O'Brien: I'm on Truman's Path. I wasn't really notified about this because I'm down at the end of the path and I don't have a property that is directly adjacent to the Papson Property but I did find out about the hearing and I do have right-of-way on the road so thought I should have been notified because this will affect our road. Our road is a very rustic road that we've maintained with a canopy of trees. We've maintained the road i itself and we've spent thousands of dollars on trimming the trees every Spring and so forth and we're afraid with this proposal that we're going to lose that. There is nothiryU stated any place in the documents that say anything about buffer zones or limit of clearing or anythin dike that. Can anybody address that? Ms. Woodhouse: Mark? Mark Terry, Sr. Environmental Planner: I guess the first question would be are the trees located in your right-of-way or are they on the Papson property? Mr. O'Brien: Some are on our right-of-way; some are on the Papson property. Mr. Terry: What's the width of your right-of-way? Mr. O'Brien: Our right-of-way, I think, is approximately 20-25 feet wide. Mr. Terry: O.K. So, you're not concerned about use for your right-of-way; you're concerned about limiting the clearing — Mr. O'Brien: She wants to pave through it. It's going to be destroyed if it's cleared right up to the fence line. Mr. Terry: Right. That's a valid point. Mr. O'Brien: It affects 26 houses. There's 26 families on that road. It affects 26 houses. We've kept that rustic. In fact, we've kept it a dirt road for many years and then we decided that we couldn't maintain it because we're getting potholes but we didn't want 2 ��ql(2y- a,0 to go to a paved road so we went to a macadam road, again, to keep the rustic nature and it really makes all of our properties. Our properties will be de-valued and our quality of life would be de-valued if we lost that. Now, I know towns like Southampton and so forth have limits of clearing. They have buffer zones and so forth. I don't think there's anything in place in this town. I'm not sure about that but there should be or it should be up to you people to put that in as a restraint on what can be,done and what can't be done. Mr. Terry: So you're requesting a limit of clearing of a certain distance from that right-of- way to maintain it's rural character? Mr. O'Brien: That's a definite, yes. I don't even know what the original application was approved for setbacks because the house, the rear yard — I don't know how they came up with the rear yard running the left of the property. I would imagine the rear yard should be facing on to Papson's road —the front yard should be facing on to Papson's road. Mark Terry: It's served by a common driveway—this lot is served by a common driveway which you're referring to as Papson's road?. Bob O'Brien: Our road runs parallel to the west side /o/-the proposed house. Mr. Terry: Right. J Mr. O'Brien: Her property runs to the east side of the 'roposed house. Mr. Terry: Right. Mr. O'Brien: The total width of the property or depth, depending on how you look at it, is 100 feet. Mr. Terry: Right. It's a clustered set-off. It actually can go smaller than the zoning district so, therefore, all the setbacks are modified proportioned to the lot size. The Planning Board has the authority to cluster lots— Mr. O'Brien: What about the direction of the house itself? Why isn't the house — Mr. Terry: We don't have any control or the Planning Board has no control with the direction of the house as long as they build it within the building envelope meeting Building Department setbacks— Mr. O'Brien: But who decides what the front of the house is? Mr. Terry: The Building Department. Mr. O'Brien: The Building Department decides that. So, logically, wouldn't it be facing her road? 3 ONE4 Mr. Ten,: It could be facing the Main Road — Bruno Semon, Sr. Site Plan Reviewer: It would be the Building Department that would determine what frontage is your front. Mr. O'Brien: Are we past that process at this point? Mr. Terry: No. This public hearing — Mr. O'Brien: Because, in this case, the side lot which is 25 and is probably in conformance, would be, logically,,the back lot which would have to be a minimum of 50 feet. Mr. Terry: Once again, if you have a cluster lot, those standard-setbacks are waived — Mr. O'Brien: Can you define — I don't understand what cluster is,. Mr. Terry: Clustered means— Mr. O'Brien: Clustered, to me, would mean a group of houses. Do you mean two is a cluster? Mr. Terry: In the Panning Board's realm, they.have the ability to cluster lots from 40,000, 30,000, 20,000 square feet depending on the nature of the neighborhood and whatnot. When you cluster a lot, those dimensional standards are relaxed, are releas sd' and, therefore, you can conform to that lot size that's created through the Planning Board. Obviously, in this case, I think it's a 40,000 square foot lot. Let me pull the map. Sir, you do have a valid point about the trees. I think what the Planning Board may want to do is go out there and look at the character of Truman's Path and see if there is an ability to set a buffer to protect those trees. I.know they're quite old, correct? Mr. O'Brien: They're old and we've created a'canopy over the road that really makes our road beautiful and that's why we have it. Mr. Terry: Also, in response to something that just slipped my mind they did receive a Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for this.action and that.was issued in 2001. Mr. O'Brien: And that's in regard to the setbacks and so forth? Mr. Terry: It's relief from minimum road frontage and lot widths, yes. Mr. O'Brien: How does that inter-relate with the Building Department because you told me the Building Department is a lead'on how the house is configured on the property. Mr. Terry: The Building Department is going to follow the ZBA's decision. Chairperson Woodhouse: The ZBA made the decision about the size of the lots and the road — 4 Mr. O'Brien: They're basically going to rubberstamp their decision, that's what they're going to do. Is that correct? Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. Once the ZBA establishes where those lots are — Mr. O'Brien: And you have no control over it at this point.because it's been approved by the ZBA? Ms. Woodhouse: We�don't have control over those lot widths or the minimum road frontage but we can do something about the trees and the clearance and the buffer zone which you brought to our attention tonight. Mr. O'Brien: O.K. Just one other thing — it says on this drawing here that dwellings on the side of Truman's Path utilize public water. That's our side of the path, the west side. That's not true. Some of the houses still have well water and I see that they're in a stage — I didn't quite see an approval from the Health Department but how could they get approval from the Health Department if they have the statement on here which isn't true because.you need the 150 foot setbacks from the septic to anybody's well? Ms. Woodhouse:.The Suffolk County Department of Health did issue approval on March 12t of this year for this particular application. Mr. O'Brien: Were they provided with the right information —that's what I'm wondering. They might assume that everybody on my street is connected to public water. Ms. Woodhouse: I can't answer your question as to whether they received correct information. Mr. O'Brien: Can you look into it? Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. We certainly may. Mr. O'Brien: I think that covers it all. I thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Did you sign your name for the record? Mr. O'Brien: I signed that. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you so much. Is there someone else who would like to address the Board on this issue? Yes, Madame? Vicky Papson: I just have a question. I'll sign this in a minute. What was this about the 26 foot right-of-way into my property? I didn't quite understand that. That Truman's Path has. Ms. Woodhouse: We're talking about there is a right-of-way along Truman's Path — 5 ZQI Ms. Papson: He mentioned something about.26 feet into my property, is that correct? Ms. Woodhouse: No. Ms. Papson: Then I misunderstood. Ms. Woodhouse: Mark, would you clarify that, please? .Mark Terry: He's referring to Truman's Path which is located on the west side of your property. Your lot is accessed over your common driveway which is recorded in the Covenants and Restrictions. That's your primary access to your new parcel. Ms. 'Papson: Correct. Mr. Terry: Therefore you're not permitted to use Truman's Path. He just stated that he was concerned about the trees being cleared on your property that may contribute to the rural character. I recommend that the Planning Board address that situation. I see trees on your right-of-way serving your house and I do not suspect that you'll clear trees. Ms. Papson: Right. Mr. Terry: However, the Planning Board may want to address it legally and that would.- require require adding a covenant and restriction to this action. Ms. Papson: Wr, re talking about the trees that line Truman's Path? Mr. Terry: That is correct. Ms. Papson: We're not talking about clearing to build a house or anything else? Mr. Terry: No. Ms. Papson: O.K. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes, Madame? Would you also sign your name, please? Excuse me, Carol, do you want them to state their name also? Carol Kalin, Secretary: Yes. Ms. Woodhouse: Would you also state your name? Marilyn Pasierb, 680 Truman's Path: I agree with Mr. O'Brien about the trees and the rustic setting of the area. The other thing —from what I could tell from the map and I don't'know if I read it correctly, approximately where this house would sit across the street on Truman's Path, there is a ravine that goes down to the East Marion Lake and that ravine is often access or right-of-way for deer to go down into the ravine to drink at the lake and then come back up that way. So, if there's a lot of clear cutting, that won't 6 ��q/Z5 be possible. Now, I know a lot of people don't like deer but that is a right-of-way through or access,for them to get down to the lake to drink. Chairperson Woodhouse: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? (No one else asked to be heard.) I'm going to entertain a motion to hold the hearing open so we have an opportunity to look at the issues of the clearing. Mr. Edwards: I'll second that motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded.All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. This hearing will be held open. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6,05 p.m. - Scott, John & Tuffy, Sandra (formerly Scott) - This proposal is to subdivide a 43:25 acre parcel into 2 parcels where SCTM#1000-96- 5-13 equals 23.08 acres upon which Development Righl%s have been sold and SCTM#1000-102-2-23.4 which equals 20.16 acres, inc�iusive of an 11.16 acre reserve area and 9 acres upon which Developments,Rights are proposed to be sold to the Town of Southold: The property is located at 31025 Main Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone hereto speak on behalf of this arp ilit cation? Yes, Sir? Please state your name and your address. l George Starkie: I am right adjacent, just to the east of the property that is proposed for the subdivision or right-of-way or what is it—.a set-off? I approached the Tuffys or Mr. Scott and Bob Jenkins'back about two years ago and we actually had looked into subdividing my property. I have a piece that is right set smack in the middle down on the right-of-way and I was led to believe at the time that, because we are on a 22-foot right-of-way, that that was kind of done back when the property was divided up because, to make it a legal access road, it had to be 25 feet so there were reasons for that so that you couldn't keep going back to the well and asking for more. So, by setting the road width at 22 feet as aright-of-way and,giving half ownership to myself and half to the Scotts, that that would limit any future subdivisions and major developments to take place because I think you need 50 feet of a roadway and 25 for a minor. Am I mistaken in that? I'kind of investigated it; it's kind of old news. To make a long story short, we were approached by the Town.a number of years ago about selling our Development Rights and it was one of those things,— I will if you will so I actually went over to Bob Jenkins who is the owner on Depot Lane and I talked to the Scotts and I said maybe we should go down there and talk to Melissa as a group, which we did, and, the Town was very generous at the time. Now it looks like chump change from the numbers I'm hearing but at the time it was a generous offer because, by us going in together, we actually have a contiguous piece, from Depot Lane now to Cox Lane, of preserved land and one of the things that's real outrageous about this piece is, if ao$ anyone goes down Depot Lane,.there's this incredible vista. Now, I'm into agriculture; I grow the nursery stock all along Depot and then my home.farm in the back and, even with the plant material, it's not anything that's obnoxious. In fact, I rent 30 acres from the cemetery and I make sure I put all the flowering stuff behind the church and everything so I'm a hero when it's flowering.time and I keep all the nice stuff there because we want to be good neighbors. So, I heard that the property was for sale and that it is actually in contract to be sold now and that's why I think they're seeking to divide this piece off from their main farm and it was only the other day that I actually found out who was in contract and what the proposed use was for the land and it is agriculture but it's in the nursery end of'it with greenhouses and stuff and, because there's no piece of developable land on there, there won't be any homes but obviously there can be barns built and things of that nature which are a necessary need in the agricultural business. I brought a map of the area. I've got to have it back because I use it for my spray records for the DEC. They're real important on this. I have an aerial.view of Depot Lane with the church and the vista and this open piece of ground that runs from Depot Lane all the way to Cox and you'll notice that there's nothing back there. Now, I spoke to the gentleman who is in contract-with the property to just try to open up a dialogue—what are your intentions, you know- obviously it's a big concern because that was the reason why I sold my Developi)nent Rights in the beginning so this open space would stay and I know you need a.bar /but I don't want it out the front door either. I mean that would just, like I said, if you look at the picture, you'll see what I mean when you're surrounded by 150-200 acres of open land, it would be a crime but the only access to this property is on this right-of-way that comes down through the property and.there's a whole bunch of us down the line from King Kullen and all the way back to the Goerlers who are ja71ong the tracks. So, one of my questions and concerns was is that I was led to believe that, because it was a 22-foot right-of-way, that there was a limited amount of set-offs and subdivisions that were going to be allowed on this roadway. Now, when I sold my Development Rights, I maintained a two-acre piece around the house so [wouldn't need any special permissions to pull to the house and do things. It would be just a building permit type of an issue and not a.preservation type permission and so there's two lots on there now. This will make three and I know that the Scotts— and there's public knowledge that the Scotts have also — or Mrs. Tuffy is in negotiations with the.Town to buy an additional 9 acres of rights on ground just to the south of this piece that they're looking to do the set- off, another 9 additional acres. Now, what my concern is we went from having no neighbors, and thinking that we just had the neighbors that we had, to where there are potentially how many more set-offs can take place and then can this piece that's about 23 acres be subdivided again and how many times can something like that happen because we're into some grey areas because I know there's farm.preservation that's new. I know of the definition of agriculture is still being debated and is a greenhouse a structure or is it, you know, a temporary thing and it's unfortunate but I was hoping that all of those decisions would be made before it had any affect on my life and, unfortunately, it looks like I'm on the lead of this. Maybe other people have had to deal with this. 8 The other thing that I wanted to point out to the gentleman that's in contract is that we do have a deeded heliport back there — North Fork Helicopters is my tenant; they do the crop spraying for a lot of the farmers in the area and mosquito control and whatnot for Nassau/Suffolk Counties and it's unfortunate but a lot of people think that you can just take off any way you want to but you have to take off into the wind and anyone who knows that area up'there, most of the prevailing winds are from west to east and John has to take right out off over that land there. Now, obviously another concern of mine, depending on structures and stuff like that, you just can't hover these things up to 100 feet and then take off at that point with a full belly of pesticides and whatnot. I also spoke to Bob Jenkins, who is directly attached to this property, and he said he never received notification about this hearing tonight so I'd like you to look into the record to see if he was properly served with notice. And, again, he'did express to me the same concerns but he was at the doctor's all day with his wife who had surgery on her foot so he could not make it tonight. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the —just like the folks before me, I'm not familiar with what the format is. This is just for the set- off and maybe it's a Building Department issue and maybe it's a Preservation Committee issue but I thought it very important for me to drive out from Farmingdale tonight to get it on the record that there are some concerns. I talked to Melissa about it. She suggested that I get something on the record that there are concerns but, at the jsame time, the.gentleman that's in contract— I want to be a good neighbor- I want to work with the gentleman but I have to balance that out with the reality of we have something really nice back there and I'd hate to see it spoiled and everyone in this room paid for that. You bought the rights and you bought that vista, I believe, and you want to keep agriculture viable but there's got to be a balance in there. So, the other question I have is, like I said, how many more times can a subdivision take place on a right-of-way that's only 22 feet wide? I was led to believe, at the time, that it's very limited on how many set-offs and subdivisions and that was the whole reason for setting up this right-of-way where we only own half and the neighbor owns half and it was left at 22 feet so there couldn't be a lot of this stuff taking place. Is there any set thing in stone on that? Mark, do you want to comment on this? Mark Terry: If this subdivision was for residential development, the Planning Board would have the right to require that the right-of-way be widened. It is not for residential development; it's being subdivided for Development Rights. There's no potential for residential development on this property. However, there are potentials for greenhouses and the Planning Board does not really control the building of greenhouses nor do we control the area that is required for greenhouses,and whatnot. That's a land preservation question. I know you spoke to Melissa who probably batted you here. Mr. Starkie: It seems like it's a hot potato issue. Mr..Terry: It is. I don't know what the Board could do regarding the limitation of greenhouses on this property. Mr. Starkie: Again, I don't think the greenhouses are so much the issue because it goes part and parcel with growing the crops that this gentleman,wants to grow and I'm not 9 50lgloA� 7 looking to encumber—you know, listen, with the cost of land even with Development Rights sold — and it's going to be public knowledge because they'll put it in the Times— he's paying a lot of money for this ground and there's no rights on it so, to be able to stay in agriculture and to be able to afford,that kind of money for a piece of ground and keep it in ag., is pretty impressive and I don't want to be the guy to ruin that and make it harder for him because I'm sure it's going to be difficult already but, at the same time, I'd like to know who and where is there an opportunity to have dialogue where there is some type of rule — like I was just very fortunate; I was in the lottery for some ground up in Jamesport. I got one of the KeySpan property pieces—30 acres. I haven't closed on it yet. God only knows when that will happen if it's government but they were very, very, very specific about who, what, where—they even count the roads as coverage and they don't want any more than 10% coverage and they don't care if it's a roadway and, you know, knewthat going in and here you have a lot of pieces of property now that the rights are.being sold; they're going back out onto the market and Southold isn't in a position to deal with this so the decision time is going to be coming. For me, it's now. Over all, there's going to be a lot of this happening where Development Right parcels are sold and there's going to be some activity going on there and you're going to want to have a say otherwise I've seen some nursery operations you wouldn't want to have even in the backwoods, let alone on your front lawn. I mean, that's.pretty much what we're talking about. I'm sure this gentleman runs a very clean operation. I've seen others that aren't so clean and it would be a real tragedy to have something like that right out your front door. Chairperson Woodhouse: Yes, you have identified some of the major issues that are a concern befor�,Ithe Town right now. Unfortunately for us,'it's not within our jurisdiction to comment on the greenhouse size, placement, etc. as Mark indicated. That is an issue that is being{discussed by the Town Board and I would urge you seriously to convey to them your concerns, your recommendations in this area and anyone else who shares those concerns about property that is similar where the Development Rights have been sold, where there is no residential development, but there is property that will be requiring buildings to support agriculture. And as you indicated, the face of agriculture is changing. Mr. Starkie: There is no question. If you want to keep it green, this is what's going to happen. The only other thing that I wanted you to look into is just to check out on the service. I had mine Return Register Receipt, delivered up in Farmingdale but my other neighbors, I haven't heard from. If you would check on that. Ms. Woodhouse: I did make an indication to check on that. Carol, do you have any information for us on that? Do you have the,file? Mark Terry: I do. I don't see Jenkins being listed on a Certified Mail Receipt. Mr. Starkie: He's abutting property. He's just to the west.. Martin Sidor: What name would that be under? Mr. Starkie: I'm sorry? 10 Mr. Sidor: Would that be under a different company name? Mr. Starkie: Just Bob Jenkins. He works with his father-in-law— Doroski Nursery. It's the original Doroski Farm. I had spoken to Bob Jenkins tonight just to say, hey, there's a hearing on — it's about the property. He said I didn't know about it so I said I would bring that up but also that he, obviously, has the same concerns. So, I'll relay that message. You're saying it's the Town Board, not even the people like Melissa in Preservation? Chairperson Woodhouse: Land Preservation, certainly, because the discussion is at that level at the Town Board. We will look into the issue of notification of the hearing and, I believe, there are some other people who do want to speak on this application. George Starkie: Just quickly— how many times can you subdivide this land? Can you make these mini farms? Can you make them 4-acre farms and do that and everybody can have a barn on their land? I mean, it's almost like it's being a lot to be developed again. Mr. Terry: Once again, that's in the jurisdiction of the Land Preservation Committee who nominates— Mr. Starkie: So, there's no rules right now on this? 1 Mr. Terry: Right. Technically, there's no rules. / Mr. Starkie: O.K.,Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Yes, Madame? Please come to the microphone, announce yourself and sign in. Sandra Tuffy (formerly Scott), Applicant: I'm apart-owner in this parcel and I sent out the notices with the return receipts and Bob Jenkins wasn't listed on my list of people to send to but I did send them all and, everyone I sent to, I got the receipts and I had given them to you. The other thing I wanted to say was that, at the time when all these pieces in the back— when the building rights were sold, the agricultural definition at that time, was the same for all of them so it's not like one has an unfair advantage over the other. They are all, everybody that did it, has the same rights. Whatever the person is interested in buying is able to do on.this parcel, you are able to do on yours and everyone else at the same time because that was the description at that time. So, it's not unfair for one over the other. As far as what one person can do, according to the description at that time, everyone can do it. The receipts I did bring back in. Chairperson.Woodhouse: We do not have the one for Jenkins. Ms. Tuffy: That wasn't listed on my original list of people to send to so I didn't send.it. 11 g/R(04 23,/2, Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this application? (No one else asked to comment.) Are there any questions or comments from the Board? (There were none.) We're going to entertain a motion to hold the hearing open. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. We're going to hold this hearing open. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:10 p.m. - McFeely. John - This proposed major subdivision is for 6 lots orii a 30.785 acre parcel where Lot 1 equals 1.67 acres; Lot 2, 2.31 acres; Lot 3, 2.09 acres and Lot 4, 2.09 acres. The Town of Southold and the County of Suffolk will a/quire fee title to Lot 5 equal to 11.39 acres and Lot 6 equal to 11.39 acres for open space purposes. The project is located n/o NYS Route 25 and the LIRR easement in Laurel. SCTM#1000-125-1-14. /l Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? r Peter Danowski, Esg.: Good evening. I represent Jack McFeely, the owner of this land. We've been through the sketch and preliminary map processes. This is the final piece in the puzzle. Certainly, I think, both the Town, County and my client are anxious to close on this matter. You succinctly and correctly put forth the information. This is a preservation of Laurel Lake wherein my client will receive four small lots on NYS Route 25. We just ask you to approve this by resolution tonight. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: I think there were some open issues at the last— Mr. Danowski: Yes, and I — Ms. Woodhouse: Could you summarize where we're at with that, please? Mr. Danowski: Yes. I think the Suffolk County Health Department is I always say imminent but imminent always takes months it seems. ...(inaudible) correspondence from Suffolk County Water Authority; we expect that to happen any day. The payment of recreation fees was another issue. We'd make any approvals subject to the payment of those fees and the Health Department approval and we think we've shaken out the result of the maintenance situation with the County Water Authority but we'll certainly have that as a condition of any final approval. 12 ��9�®I Ms. Woodhouse:Any questions from the Board? (There were,:none.) Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this matter? (There were no further comments or questions.),I'd like a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. The hearing is closed. (The public hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m.) Would you please read the resolution? Mr. Edwards: I'd like to entertain the following resolution: WHEREAS, this proposed major subdivision is for 6 lots on a,30.785 acre parcel where Lot 1 equals 1.67 acres; Lot 2, 2.31 acres; Lot 3, 2.09 acres and Lot 4, 2.09 acres. The j Town of Southold and the County of Suffolk will acquire fee title to Lot 5 equal to 11.39 acres and Lot 6 equal to 11.39 acres for open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the bond estimate in the amount of $112,450.00 on April 13, 2004 for proposed right-of-way improvements; and WHEREAS, the 25 foot road will be improved pursuant to Clause 13 of the Rider For the Contract of Sale between NOFO.Associates and the Suffolk County Water Authority, dated August 6, 2003; and WHEREAS; due to the contractual obligation, the Planning Board hereby releases the bond requirement in the amount of$112,450.00 road improvements; and WHEREAS, maintenance of the "easement" will be performed by the Suffolk County Water Authority pursuant to Clause 8 of the Easement Agreement between NOFO Associates and the Suffolk County Water Authority, dated.July 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the subdivision is a cluster subdivision pursuant to Article XVIII of_the Southold Towne Code; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the'Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional final approval on, the maps entitled Subdivision Sketch Plan,dated-June 22, 2004, subject to the following conditions. The.conditions must be met within six (6) months of the resolution: 1. The submission of 8 paper and 5 mylar,plats with approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health. 13 a�1 2. Please amend the plat title to read "Final Cluster Subdivision Plan of John McFeely" 3. Please submit the Administrative Fee in the amount of$6,747.00 approved by the Planning Board on April 13, 2004. 4. Please submit the Park and Playground Fee in the amount of$15,000.00. 5.. Please submit a draft Covenant and Restriction defining permitted and non- . permitted activities in the non-disturbance buffers and the 10 foot non- disturbance area. In addition, please include a provision stating that all existing curb cuts except the 25 foot right-of-way proposed on State Route 25 will be abandoned and the access to and from Lots 1 -and 4 to State Road 25 from any area other than the 25 foot right-of-way is prohibited. 6. The submission of a Draft Road and Maintenance Agreement. 7. The submission of a Highway WorkPermit from the State of New York Department of Transportation. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms.. 6odhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairpers,,n Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:15 p.m. - Duffy. Estate of Alice G. - This proposal is to set off a. .93 acre lot from an 8.15 acre parcel. In addition, a lot line change is proposed,to transfer .09 acres from SCTM#1000-63-2-6 to SCTM#1000-63-2-5. Following the transfer, SCTM#1000-63-2-5 will equal .502 acres. The parcel is located on the east side of Railroad Avenue, 365.25' north of Hummel Avenue, in Southold. Is there someone who would like to speak to the Board on this matter? Deirdre Simmons, 1970 Youngs Avenue: I received notice as an abutting property owner and I have a question of clarification. I went and I looked through the documents and I see that there is a subdivision application form and, I believe, that the transfer of a portion of an acreage could then.be an entrance to this subdivision because I also have a document that says that it's a major subdivision; it's a cluster subdivision. Am I correct? I am referring to an article in the Suffolk Times about a year and a half ago that Kontakosta, the developer, was going to put 180 senior units on what was a farmed parcel and it's behind my property. Ms. Woodhouse: This is for a set-off and a lot line change.. 14 g�gro� Ms. Simmons: Right. My question is — is this for an entrance to a major, clustered subdivision? Ms. Woodhouse: No. Mark Terry: No. Ms. Woodhouse: Is there anything else you'd like to add, Mark? Mr. Terry: No, it is not. It basically involves a Development Rights Sale of 7.13 acres and it's setting off of an existing home. No new development is proposed. Ms. Simmons: Great. O.K. So, the subdivision application form that I have from the file at the Planning Office doesn't refer to this because it says cluster subdivision, yes; type of subdivision, major? Mr. Terry: It doesn't apply to this application. Ms. Simmons: Because the name of the subdivision is Duffy Set-Off and Lot Line Change. 1 Mr. Terry: Can I see what you have? Ms. Simmons: Yes, certainly. Should I come y ? Mr. Terry: Sure. Ms. Woodhouse: Please. Mr. Terry: O.K. This is the form that we require tnat every applicant fill out to tell us what they're doing. Do you see that lot line is checked off here— Ms. Simmons: Yes, I do. Mr. Terry: - and set-off? Ms. Simmons: Yes, I do. Mr. Terry: Duffy Set-Off and Lot Line Change. Ms. Simmons: Right. Mr. Terry: Where did you see major? Ms. Simmons: (indicated where the word major was on the form.) 15 Mr. Terry: O.K. They are supposed to check these boxes if that's the type of subdivision that they are applying for. In this case; it is a set-off and lot line change. Ms. Simmons: Great. Thank you. Mr. Terry: You're welcome. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this matter? Mr. Olsen? . Gary Olsen, Esq.: I am the attorney for the applicant, the Estate of Alice Duffy. It's a very simple application where we're selling the Development Rights to the bulk of the property owned by the Estate and we're just setting off the farmhouse parcel. That's the purpose. We have Health Department approval. That's required by the Planning Board and we've also received approval from the Southold Town Board to purchase the property Development Rights. Chairperson Woodhouse: Have you closed on that— you will close on that after this? Mr. Olsen: That's right. We need to go through this before we can complete the sale. That's it. Ms. Woodhouse:.O.K.,Is.Anere anyone else who would like to speak to the, Board? Hearing no further comments, I'll ask for a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The hearing is closed. (The public hearing was closed at 6:38 p.m.) Would you please read the resolution, Mr. Cremers? Mr. Cremers: WHEREAS, this proposal is to set off a .93 acre improved lot from a 8.15 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, in addition, a lot line change is proposed to transfer .09 acres from SCTM# 1000-63-2-6 to SCTM#1000-63-2-5 and, following the transfer, SCTM#1000-63-2-5 will equal .502 acres; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold is in contract to purchase Development Rights on 7.13 acres of the 8.15 acre parcel; therefore be it 16 �l�lo� RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the plat dated as last revised January 27, 2004. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? That motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: 6:20 p.m. - Bill Fox Grounds Maintenance -'This site plan is for conversion and alteration of an existing residence:to.351 sq. ft. of office on the 1 st floor and a 2nd floor apartment on a 0.24 acre parcel in the HB Zone located approximately 725' s/o County Road 48, on the w/s/o Peconic Lane, known as 2595 Peconic Lane, in Peconic. SCTM#1000-74-5-4.1 Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? -�/ Michael Mapes: I'm the engineer responsible for the site plan. At this point, unless there are some other open issues, I've addressed all the issues that the Town Engineer had and I revised the site plan to alleviate those concerns and, also, we have a.valid Health Department-Permit which, I think, we submitted to you. So, if there are any other.open issues, I'm willing to entertain questions. Ms. Woodhouse: Are there any questions from the Board? (There were none.) Thank you. Please sign our new form. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Yes, Sir? If you'd like to use this side— please state your name. Kenneth Allan: I co-own 2585 Peconic Lane which is directly across from this property in question. Some concerns we have about this —we received,a letter from Suffolk County, dated June 28t", and this letter that we received from Suffolk County—the plan for this property was that it was going to be demolished with a new structure erected in its place with a "dry retail store" on the first floor and an accessory apartment on the second. We know that we're here tonight because he simply wants to "alter" the existing structure to change the first floor to a "professional office" and the second floor an apartment. Why is there this discrepancy? Bruno Semon, Sr. Site Plan Reviewer: It's clearly something that Suffolk County had as a discrepancy. It's not anything that we've been processing, as you see in the file and on the map outside. Mr. Allan: O.K. A couple of other issues that we have about this — I have lived at 2585 Peconic Lane for two years in December. For that entire period of time, Mr. Fox has failed, and failed miserably, to maintain this property. You have a responsibility as a property owner, even if the property is sitting dormant, to at least keep the yard clean 17 #410 and to remove construction debris. It's been sitting like that ever since. Only this past Friday did a clean-up crew arrive and they didn't even clean it up.,It's still a mess and have an issue'with that: I also have an issue with what is going to be the use of the first floor—the proposal states that it's going to be.a 300 square foot office on the first floor. The first floor is far larger than that. What's going to happen with the rest of the first floor and what will be the maximum occupancy allowed for the second floor apartment? I have no issue with there being an apartment there but I do have an issue concerning what's the maximum occupancy going to be, who, in turn, is going to enforce it? Again, since.this property has been allowed to be so poorly maintained, I have no belief in anything Mr. Fox proposes doing with it. He has no credibility in.my eyes.. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Bruno, would you like to address some of the issues about the use and the size of the apartment? Do you have the site plan in front of you? Mr. Semon: Yes, I do and, actually, you can review it. I think that the engineer should come up and address the actual use of the property, if that's o.k., Chairman. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. On the first floor, particularly. Michael Mapes: The first floor,is proposed as a professional office such as real estate, lawyer—we really don't know. Bill is proposing to rent it out so we really don't know f, what type,of business is going to be in there. However, according to the Town Code, that would fit in with the proposal. Ms. Woc�d house: The question was the office proposes'351 square feet and, I believe, the question.was the rest of that floor will be used for what? Mr. Mapes: The offices themselves—there are two offices within the floor plan and those offices'total out to be 300 square feet. Mr. Allan: Where is parking proposed for these offices? Mr. Mapes: The parking is in the back. Mr. Allan: And that's where the tenants will park also? Mr. Mapes: That is correct. There is one space for a tenant. Mr. Allan: And, if there is only one space fora tenant, again —what is the maximum occupancy going to be for this? One car for an apartment is inadequate: Mr.'Mapes: It's proposed as'an accessory apartment. I don't know what limitations the Town has for how many people can occupy an accessory apartment. Chairperson Woodhouse: Mr. Semon? . 18 Mr. Semon: It's actually something that is not in front of the Planning Board whatsoever. It's an issue that's handled by the Building Department. We're not reviewing it for the accessory apartment. It would not be in site plan process for that issue. The parking actually totals out 6 spots and that site plan map is out on the window in front of the Court Room. Mr. Allan: The fact is I still have grave concerns because of the condition the property is in now. Do you think it will improve once this is done? Ms. Woodhouse: Those are questions that are valid but they are outside the purview of this Board. Mr. Allan: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: Those are issues that we would not be able to comment on. Kenneth Allan: O.K. But the issue of maximum occupancy— another reason why I harp on that —we were offered to be put on Town water, because of where the well and septic are positioned for the structure in question tonight, declined that because right after we closed, I spent quite a bit-of money on a sediment filter system for the well water and I want to keep the well water. So, my other concern With that—since the well and septic is, obviously, a hot button on this property, it all gon back to the maximum occupancy issue. So, whoever has to address that, that need's to be brought up. And, also, we want to verify who enforces that. Chairperson Woodhouse: The first question, that would be the Building Department and the Code Enforcer would enforce the occ`lpancy. So, if there is a question, that's who you would contact on that matter. Mr. Allan: All right. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Semon: But, Madame Chairman, on the water issue and your well location —that's all granted through the approval of Suffolk County Health Department and has nothing to do with the Town Planning Board. It had to be approved through the County and the . County— Mr. Allan: But, the County's letter states that it's a tear-down.and a new building. Everything that they talked about concerning the well's septic, etc. had to do with a new building going up there. It had nothing to do with a re-use of the existing structure. Mr. Semon: But, the truth of the matter is, it's not being ripped down; it's actually pre- r existing, using what's there with a modification of the first floor only, based on what's in front of us. Mr. Allan: O.K. Again, it just does not jive with what the County says. The County says there's going to be a new.system. 19 8/9/o* d� Mr. Semon: If you'd like, we have a copy of the Health Department approval here. You're welcome to review that as well Mr. Allan: That's fine. Mr. Semon: That's actually stamped and certified by the County. Mr. Allan: Do you want a copy of this letter that we got from the County? Mr. Semon: We have that as well. Mr. Allan: O.K. Mr. Semon: We do. It's just something that's only reviewed by Suffolk County and not by the Planning Board for Health Department approval. Mr. Allan: All right. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Bennett Blackburn: I own the;.property directly to the west of this on Peconic Lane. In fact, there is a deeded right-,if-way that cuts right across this property that serves my property. The parking was.a concern but I have reviewed the site plan. One thing that I was concerned about or curious about is, basically, the site plan turns the entire yard into a parking lot. I didn't know if there was a — I have some recollection but couldn't quote specifics and you would know— is there a maximum amount of perc/FAntage of property that can be occupied by a building and also by parking because �.hat's left is about a 5 foot strip between the parking space and my property and everything else is going to be gravel. He drives down one side of the house, parks 6 vehicles in the back and then drives down.the,other side of the house, leaving a hedge between his property and Kelly Bennett's property which is to the south. We have visions of many, many, many more vehicles than 6 vehicles being attached to this building based on things that were told to me by Mr. Fox of what his intended use for the tenants was which was to service workers for his landscape business, that this would be housing. Six vehicles, one of which serves the apartment, raises the question of where are the other ones going to go? I don't see that I can object to anything else except that he's turning the whole thing into a parking lot and it's not adequate if there's going to be— I understand that the Planning Board doesn't address maximum occupancy but, we as neighbors, have to — I was also concerned about the fact that the site plan shows 150-250 watt quartz halogen lights. Well, Peconic has enough quartz halogen lights, thank you, and don't know if these are going to be on a timer that they turn off at 10:00. The lights at the field next door run until 11:00 and past 11:00 sometimes. I go to bed about 9:30 or 10:00 and one of them is aiming right at my property. Why do you need two quartz halogen lights and are they going to be on all the time? There's.enough light pollution as it is. Why do we need more? Ms. Woodhouse: The lighting is addressed in the resolution. Let me just refer to it. At this point, it says: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not 20 g/ad0,� visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. Mr. Blackburn: O.K. So, if I.see it, I can complain is what it comes down to. It's prohibited that I have to look at these lights. Ms. Woodhouse: I don't have the specs. in front of me in terms of the lights. Mr. Blackburn: I didn't know anything about that. I saw it on the site plan. I reviewed that today. Are there any restrictions on the maximum you can - of space you can displace into parking?, Ms. Woodhouse: Yes, Bruno, would you address parking for me? Bruno Semon: Yes, just to go back— you actually brought up several different questions. To indicate about the landscape coverage, the site plan indicates that there's 36% coverage that was certified by an engineer so, unless that's wrong, there's 36% of landscaping on that property that's going to be left. In addition, the lot coverage of the building and its' accessory are going to be 13%, also certified by an engineer. That was i two issues. The lighting is indicated to be 150 watt halogen. It must meet the Code. -� Mr. Blackburn: Two of them. Mr. Semon: Yes, there's two on the building and would have to meet the Code. If there are any issues, that's something that Code Enforcement would actually come out and handle. There's...no exception on that; we have to indicate that it meets the Code. Mr. Blackburn:O.K. and we, as neighbors, if the lights area problem, then we talk to, basically, the Building Department? Mr. Semon: Correct, Code Enforcement. Mr. Blackburn: And Code Enforcement would also be the concern if there become excessive vehicles and excessive occupancy and that's not your concern; you're just doing the site plan. I understand that. We're looking for guidance on how we live with this: Mr. Semon: The problem is that the house is already there, Sir, as you know, and it has been a multiple occupancy in the past. Mr. Blackburn: Yes, several owners. Yes, there were several — Mr. Semon: So, it was a legal two-family some time ago and it had several different occupancies in it. Right now, it's going to have one accessory apartment with an office use. I think the restrictions are geared more towards the Health Department approval than anything else. 21 Mr. Blackburn: O.K. Thank you very much. I have to sign this. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes? Ellen Carbonell: Hi. My husband and I own Home Port Bed and Breakfast in Peconic which is sort of caddie corner across from where Mr.. Fox owns his building. I'm also a Town employee and a member of the Stakeholder's Committee and we're trying to put together some plans for.beautiful downtown Peconic which is pretty much over-run with these lights. There has been a quarter of a million dollars worth of lights Out in in the immediate.fourteen acre area around the park and light pollution is massive. This is the first I've heard about more lights going.into that area and it raises my blood pressure to think about it. You're saying that these will be directed, which the other lights are not, but'I know for a.fact that trying to deal with lighting problems.after they're put in, is much tougher than trying to deal with them before they're put in. You're saying that they would be directed to that particular area but the'ambient light and the fact that you can see all of this light all over, I would really request that some sort of timers be associated with this. I'm concerned that the Suffolk County Health Department has said that the sanitary , systems are inadequate for that building. I'm not clear on how, if the building was to be a tear-down and a single-family home put up, or another building of a similar sort put up, why the system would need to be replaced if that were the case but that it can continue to be used if it's inadequate. The fact is that the Health Department has had concerns.about the nearness of the septic system to the water supply across the street and I t i k that's.a real concern. My understanding is that people are allowed the choice as to yrhether they hook up to County water or not or Town water or not or whether they want!to stay with the well system. The neighbors have been asked whether they want to convert to make this a system that's healthy enough to comply with the Health Department Codes and they said that they didn't want to change and, I believe, that that's their right. So, I'm concerned if Mr. Fox, according to rumor, is going to put in housing for,multiple people, why will that be an adequate system? My guess, if I'm just extrapolating from the other housing that's on our street— my guess is that there are going to be many people in that apartment, especially if it's going to be people who are affiliated with the construction company. Because we have'on,our street, in addition to thirteen acres of park, we have a post office and a laundromat,with farm workers living above that. We have a number.of large residential houses that have been broken.up into apartments with lots of people living in them. There's a garage next to.the post office that has numerous farm workers living in it. There are lots and lots of residential buildings. There's an excavating company with lots of trucks and machinery right near by. There are two B & Bs. There are a couple of single-family homes. There's an antique shop, a wine-tasting room with apartments above that. You know, it's a mish- mosh right now and I'm really interested, as a member of the Stakeholder's Committee, to find out— or to help develop, I guess— a cohesive plan for this area because, as we're putting in more and more.apartments, there's a parking problem already. The people who go to the tasting room end up parking at the excavating company. The people who go to the antique shop park on property that's owned by the railroad. So, if this person — if'Mr. Fox is putting in six parking spots, I would ask why. Is he going to park his trucks for his business there? Is he going.to have six people who drive that are 22 g/q�o� a�3 going to be living in the apartment or does this have something to do with these two apartments on the first floor? And, in addition to that, I wonder about— I mean the two offices on the first floor—these-two offices,the engineer has said, add up to,300 or 350 square feet. I don't believe that answered the question about what's going to happen with the rest of the space on the first floor. Did I hear you wrong? Mr. Mapes: The first floor is going to be used as an office. There's a lobby in there. There's a reception area. Ms. Carbonell: Nothing else will be on the first floor? Mr. Mapes: There's'a handicap. bathroom. Ms. Carbonell: O.K. So, no apartments. No people living on that floor. O.K. Thank you. Mr. Semon: Madame, it's on the plan in front of you, if you'd like to view it. The lay-out is there and it indicates all of the options on that floor. Ms. Carbonell: O.K. Let me just see here a minute. I guess that really addresses all of my concerns. I just wonder whether this can be an issue that gets postponed until.the Stakeholder's Committee puts together some sort of a coordinate'-d plan bringing in more people, more parking problems and see if we can addrn'it in sort of a Manful way instead of doing this piecemeal kind of thing and not having a cohesive design in mind. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. I �'�ust want to respond to one of your questions. We do have here the stamped approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services that have reviewed the plans relating to the water supply and the sewage disposal and they have given the approval on that. So, we have that informing our decision for that piece of property and the parking requirements—with an office, there are requirernents•for the number of parking spaces that need to be in an area. Ms. Carbonell: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: So when you're asking the question of why there would be six parking spots, that relates to the use of the offices on the first floor. Ms. Carbonell: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse:.In terms of what you're'asking, there is no basis because there is an initiative for.stakeholders' involvement in.planning for the future. I don't believe that there are grounds because that initiative is under way to halt the decisions for the applications that we have in progress but it is something that we could seek legal counsel on if you would like. It's my understanding'that we need to go forward with our applications. Is there someone on the Board who would like to offer their opinion on that? 23 1' Bruno Semon: Madame Chair, just to reiterate on the parking —the parking meets the Town Code. The reason for the six spots is exactly what's being done at the site. 350 square feet of office space requires 4 spots, 1 spot for the apartment above.as well as 1 ADA-compliant spot so that's why there are.6 spots. It's meeting the Town Code and Federal standard. Ms. Carbonell: O.K. I just have one other question and that is at our Bed & Breakfast 7- and I realize that this is sort of apples and oranges—we have been required really to. have our parking be shielded from the road in order to comply with and sort of fit in with the surroundings and retain the residential character of the neighborhood. Will this plan involve any kind of ironically landscaping in front of the building to shield it? Ms. Woodhouse: We did spend a considerable amount of time reviewing and requiring landscaping on this particular piece of property. Is there a plan that shows the, landscaping that's available? Mr. Semon: It's on the plan outside. I also have one here if you'd like another one on the table. I can put it out. Ms. Carbonell: So; the parking would, be shielded — Ms. Woodhouse: The parking :.(simultaneous discussion) and the landscaping we addressed in both the front arid the back of the property. Ms. Carbonell: Hallelujah! Mr. Semon: Just to keep in mind that the house —the current building -Js 6 feet off of what would be the sidewalk so the landscape is minimum.Whatever can fit within that area. There is only a 6 foot area. Ms. Carbonell: But there's a big space between the building and the edge of the property that,I assume, is going to be taken up with the parking, right? Ms. Semon: Actually all of the parking is in the rear. There is no parking in front of the building on Peconic Lane. Mr. Mapes: On the side of the building. You have an entrance driveway and an exit driveway and it takes up pretty much the entire roadside plan. Ms. Carbonell: So there's no space for— Mr. Mapes: There's no landscaping — Ms. Woodhouse: Other than in the front, wherever we could put it.-. simultaneous discussion in audience - 24 Excuse me. I just have to remind you that, unless you address us with the microphone, we won't have a record of your comments and what everyone has to say is very important to us. So; please, it might seem like an inconvenience now but we really value what you have to say and urge you to come forward and sign in. Ms. Carbonell: Thank you very much. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr..Mapes, did you want to comment? Mr. Mapes: Yes, I'll just make a few comments. The sanitary system is a new system and it meets all the present day Suffolk,County standards. We're going to eliminate the old system. The old system was 107 feet from one of.the neighbor's wells. We meet all of the other 150 foot setbacks to all of the other neighbors that have wells in the area. One of the reasons we proposed the new system is we're increasing that setback to the neighbor's well that was 107 feet from the present system to 135 feet to the new system. The Suffolk County Health Department has approved that system. Also, there is a landscape plan that addresses some of the issues. There is a buffer all around the perimeter of the property and we show shrubs and flowers and what have you planted around the perimeter of the property and that's shown on the landscape %plan hanging outside. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address.the Board on this application? Hearing no further comments or questions, L,will entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. (The public hearing was closed at 7:05 p:m.) Would you read the resolution?' Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, the proposed site plan,to be known as the Bill Fox Grounds Maintenance Site Plan, is for the conversion and alteration of an existing residence with a 351 sq. ft. office on the first floor and'a 2nd floor apartment on.a,0.24 acre, parcel in the HB Zone; and WHEREAS, Bill Fox Grounds Maintenance, Inc. is the owner of the property known and designated as 2595 Peconic Lane, located approximately 725' s/o County Road 48 on.the w/s/o.Peconic. Lane, SCT.M#1000-74-5-4; and, 25. WHEREAS, on May 4, 2004, a formal application for approval of this site plan was submitted; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR), Part 617.5, makes a determination that the proposed action is a Type II and not subject to review; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2004, the Southold Town Fire District found adequate fire protection for this site plan and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2004, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services reviewed and granted a variance under Reference Number C-10-03-0015; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2004, Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved a new office and apartment under Reference Number C-10-03-0015 on the plan created and certified by Michael Mapes, P.E. dated 5/28/04; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed and approved the proposed drainage and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials in accordance with its recommendations of May 27, 2004 and determined they were satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2004, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and cer4ified the site plan; 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, the following two items are incorporated and included in the site plan: 1. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. 2. All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and be subject to approval from the Southold Town Building Inspection; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been.met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval on the site plan prepared and certified by Michael D. Mapes, Professional Engineer, dated August 26 01, 2004, and authorize the Chairperson to endorse the final site_plans subject to a one year review from the date of the building permit. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Chairperson Woodhouse: CVS Pharmacy- This proposed site plan is for an alteration of a 14,467 sq. ft. building to retail pharmacy spcce on a 1.78 acre parcel in the B and R-40 Zones located on NYS Road 25, between Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane, ih Mattituck. Original SCTM#s1000-143-2-1, 2, 4, 27.1, & 28 and new merged SCTM#s1000-143-2-2, 4, 27.1, 28.1 & 30.1 I am going to ask that the attorney for the applicant address the Brp�ard first and deal with some of the issues that were dealt with subsequent to our last meeting. Please state your name. Keith Archer, Esq., Harris; Bloom &P/archer: Good evening. We represent both CVS and the applicant in connection with this(application for site plan approval to convert the existing bowling alley with the restaurant and bar, that everybody knows is situated on the south side of Route 25 between Marlene Lane and Sigsbee Road; into a CVS Pharmacy which, as you know, is a permitted use under the Town of Southold Zoning Code. As you may recall, on July 12th 2004, this Board held a public hearing on this application. At that time, we had the opportunity to describe the project to you and to those in attendance. The proposed building elevations, which are facing our guests, were described by the project architect, John Montalto, who, by-the way, is here tonight. In addition, Ron Hill, our traffic consultant,,who is also here tonight, offered testimony regarding traffic and roadway issues associated with this project including the traffic study that was prepared by his firm and approved by both the New York State 'Department of Transportation, the Town's Transportation Commission and the Town's Traffic Consultant. In response to this.presentation, we received several questions and comments from those in attendance, many,of which we were able to respond to that night. Other comments we want to respond to tonight. Now, for those who were not at the July 12th meeting — I know that there are some, people who weren't because ['chatted with a couple — I'd like to just take a moment to describe what is proposed for the site..The specific application, as I mentioned, is for site plan approval to convert the existing bowling alley, which you see on the pictures to 27 my left, to a CVS Pharmacy. This proposal would dramatically improve the site with a Colonial-style building as shown on the elevations and significantly improve the site with extensive landscaping and other site improvements. And as everybody is aware at the present time, this site presently has no landscaping or vegetation. It is basically a sea of asphalt. Now, as part of our site plan application, we are proposing to demolish the existing plumbing supply building that's on the corner of Sigsbee and New York State Route 25. Doing so, will eliminate the existing head-on parking along Sigsbee which presently presents a hazard since cars and trucks are backing out onto Sigsbee Road. The bowling alley will be renovated as shown on the rendering that is before you. Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me, if you would help to just move these tables forward, you could just balance those there and not have to keep moving them and then We could see the audience and they could see what you're referring to. Would you mind just doing that, please? There are a lot of things to look at. Mr. Archer: As the Board is aware, the building design that is shown on the rendering to the right has been approved by the Town's Architectural Review Board. Just for those staring at that particular site plan, what that site plan shows — and I know the Planning Board Members can't see it but th7y have seen it— is the proposed — is the building, of course, which is the existing building and the proposed landscaping,which doesn't exist now. Now, there's been a lot of communication with the New York State De p rtment of Transportation regarding this project by both the applicant as well as the Town and the Town's Traffic Consultant. Both the New York State Department of Transportation, the Town's Transportation Commission and the Town's Traffic Consultant have reviewed and approved the traffic study and the proposed roadway improvements. In this regard, as discussed at the July 12t" meeting, the New York State Department of Transportation has required that the existing curb cut into and out of the site on Route 25 be closed as part of DOT's ongoing program of reducing.the number of access points on State Road 25. Now, to provide access to the site, our site plan shows one access point on'Sigsbee Road and two on Marlene. At the present time, both Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane are long curb cuts, extending along the full depth.of the property on either side. As part of the approved roadway plans, which have been approved, again, by the Town, the DOT and the.Town's Traffic Consultant, Sigsbee Road, which is presently one lane in each direction, will be re-striped to provide two north-bound lanes and one south-bound lane. The same will be done on Factory— on south-bound Factory—just north of Route 25. Doing so, will increase the capacity of the signalized Route 25/Sigsbee Road intersection and, with these improvements, the intersection'Will operate better with the proposed CVS then it does now. In addition, recently the DOT asked that certain additional improvements be made in a letter dated August 3rd of this year recently received by both us and the Town and the Planning Board has a copy of it. The DOT has requested, and the applicant has agreed, among other things that are in the letter, to re-stripe the existing pedestrian crossing which crosses 25 at Factory, to add certain handicap ramps and certain pedestrian lights. So, in that respect,we are in.accord with the requirements and the requests of the DOT in 28 gig/® its' August P 2004 letter. On Marlene Lane, we are proposing two'curb cuts to facilitate truck-turning movements. This is the side of the building that has the loading dock which will be used for deliveries to the store. This is background. At the public hearing, questions were asked regarding site plan and traffic-related issues and I would like to take one moment to describe how each of these issues has been addressed and then, to the extent that further definition is required, we have Ron Hill who can add or elaborate, as the case may be, with respect to traffic issues. The first issue concerns truck-turning movements onto Sigsbee and Marlene from the site. Residential property owners living on both Marlene Lane and Sigsbee Road express concerns that trucks exiting the site would make either a left onto Sigsbee or a right onto Marlene and travel south through the residential communities. In response to this and in consultation with the Town, CVS has done two things: first, we have agreed to post signs on all'three driveways prohibiting trucks, but not cars, from making a south bound turn onto both Marlene and Sigsbee. Second, the loading dock on the Marlene side of the property has been modified so that trucks using the loading dock must enter the site via the southern curb cut on Marlene, back up to the loading dock, unload and then exit via.the northerly curb cut and make a left turn onto Marlene and travel north to Route 25. Since trucks entering the site at the southerly Marlene Lane curb cut Al be positioned facing north, they will not be able to make a south-bound right turn ..."onto Marlene Lane. To further insure that the trucks do not make a right turn onto Marlene, the southerly driveway on Marlene has been modified to more readily permit trucks to enter the site from Marlene but not to exit. Further, the northerly driveway on Marlene has been modified to make it easier for trucks to turn left out of this northerly driveway to go towards Route 25. At the same time, curb returns on the south side of the northerly driveway have been reduced to prevent south-bound.truck turns. One of the other comments received at the hearing is that vehicles traveling north on Marlene are not able to make a west-bound left turn onto Route 25 due to the heavy traffic. Based on this comment and discussions with both the Town and the New York State Department of Transportation and the Town's discussions with the New York State Department of Transportation, the DOT is requiring that a No Left Turn sign be posted at the corner of Marlene Lane and Route 25, thus, vehicles traveling north on Marlene Lane would be required to make a right turn onto Route 25. We also received a comment— and most of the comments were in respect, of course, to truck-turning movements on and off of the site — but we also received a comment from a resident living on the,west side of Sigsbee, just south of the site and opposite a vacant lot but south of the site, and this person was concerned that cars turning left— because cars will be allowed to turn left onto Sigsbee —would impact her property. In response to this concern, we've increased landscaping and vegetation on the southerly side of the Sigsbee Road curb cut so as to create a heavier buffer to benefit her property. And that's in this area here. Sorry if you couldn't see it. This is all reflected. on the plans that have been revised and submitted to the Town. 29 Madame Chairperson and Members of the Board, we have listened and worked hard to address the issues that were raised by the Town, the DOT and the community. We have responded positively to the comments and have demonstrated that CVS is serious about working constructively with the Town and the community to make this site a shining example of how our cooperative effort can bring about positive results. This is an as of right use of the property as I mentioned previously. No variances are required and all necessary Town approvals have been obtained. This site could be developed with other more intense uses that are permitted in this district but that is not our proposal. Our proposal is to utilize the existing building, renovate it, convert it to a CVS Pharmacy and to do the extensive site improvements that are shown on the site as well as the extensive off-site improvements that have been requested by the Town and the DOT. I just wanted to mention that we have also offered to add supplemental vegetation in this area which is within the DOT right-of-way but it's an area that is leased to the Chamber of Commerce. So, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce and with the DOT, CVS has offered to add additional landscaping and improvements to that area to beautify the area along Route 25 as best as we are able to. We have Ron Hill from Dunn Engineering who is available to answer comments. We have John Montalto who is the project architect available to answer any questions or to respond to any comments and we have Mike Junghans who is the engineer— his firm designed the site plan — here to answer any questions or respond to any comments. However, based upon all that has led up to this hearing, Madam Chairperson and Members of the Board, we are requesting that this Board tonight—when we're done — cyjse the public hearing and approve this project. Thank you. We,would, of course, like the opportunity to respond to any questions that are still outstanding or respond to any omments before the end of the evening. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: We did have quite a long public comment section at the last meeting. We, again, are going to open up for.public comment. If there are new issues and new concerns that have not been addressed by Mr. Archer's presentation, would you raise your hand and when you are called on, please come,-state your name, write your name down and address the Board. Yes, Madame? Hannah Masterson: I'll do this as I leave. I think you're in receipt of a letter I dropped off this morning. My comments have to be — I visited.several agencies in the Town. People were very, very helpful. Questions I pose as two parts. Is all new construction subject to the current zoning rules in respect to setbacks and usage? Second, are these matters automatically referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals? I speak in terms of setbacks that are required but then not provided, incomplete on the front and the two sides. I speak also of two lots which are zoned residential and have been included in this, I heard you say that no variances were required but was this continued without variances because I did understand, and I could stand to be corrected, that something coming in new has to abide by the existing codes, not previous codes? Chairperson Woodhouse: Let me see if I can answer. Yes, we are in receipt of your letter. We do have a file of correspondence. We have all reviewed the correspondence and it is available in the Planning Board Office. In response to some of the questions, 30 Z5/ yes to the first one— is all new construction subject to current rules in respect to setbacks and usage. Yes, they are. Are the matters automatically referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals - they are not. It depends upon the Building Department's . determination. In terms of the setbacks, this is a non-conforming building. The actual non-conformance is being reduced, not increased. There is no change to the existing footprint of this existing building. In fact, a small shed is being removed to improve it, so therefore, it does not require any of the other reviews that you are talking about. Ms. Masterson: Even though it does not conform to the existing Code? Ms. Woodhouse:,Correct. This is a pre-existing building on a site - if the application came in to tear down the building and build,something new, that would be a totally different set of circumstances. In this particular case, this is not required to go any place else other than the Planning Board because the building is not being replaced with something in a different footprint that is larger or does not— Ms. Masterson: So, only newconstruction— Ms. Woodhouse: Correct. New construction. Ms. Masterson: The second part—what about the two lots.that are Residential 40, R- 40? That would be the southwest corner and the southeast corner. Ms. Woodhouse: That is not,clear on the maps that it is exactly two lots that are re- zoned commercially. The line actual y goes through the building somewhere near, I believe, that buffer area in the back/ that splits the two zones. Hannah Masterson: It was really clear, even on the one in the Traveler/Watchman, that that is part of the building itself. The amount of setback is 45 feet. ' Chairperson Woodhouse: I.can't speak right now to.the technical aspects of it but we have looked into, and the Town has.looked into, that issue and there is no requirement for a variance other than what we've been discussing so far. Ms. Masterson: I'm concerned about the residential lots which are clearly defined on the map of Marlene Lane of 1952, the builder's map, Abbott(?) and are clearly, even without my glasses being on me, on-the Traveler/Watchman and, therefore, even holding it up to the light, it is part of the building. I'm not saying it's a major part of the building but it is a part of the building and I'm particularly concerned because no matter how the flow chart shows, trucks entering and exiting onto Marlene and Sigsbee with the loading dock and trash removal placement there,I think you're talking about really phenomenal driving on the part of the truck drivers'and tremendous patience on the part of the people trying to enter and exit to.'use CVS. So, it would be normal to presume that if those entrances and exits were across the.back— Ms. Woodhouse: Let me just comment on.that. That is an issue that we did address. You raise some very good.points in your letter and we did look very carefully at siting the entrances and exits at the, rear of the building. Our major concern that mitigated 31 ShO a�a against that was the fact that there are residential properties behind it. It was important to the residences behind it that we maintain a buffer. We actually increased the density of the landscaping at that buffer to protect the residents in that area and so we opted, if you will, to choose the I don't want to say the lesser of two evils— but we made the decision that would mitigate against affecting;the residences directly behind it and if it means that the trucks have to slow down and be more careful, I think that's a good thing. Ms. Masterson: The question, too, is the exit=the top exit on Marlene—with trucks coming out-first of all, that's a very dangerous place. I think that that was one of the complaints about the Hess Service Station having too many curb cuts, especially at the top so we move over a block and we have the same thing on Marlene. If this is going to go as smoothly as projected, then,you can do away with the.northern curb cut but then you have to bring them around so the logical thing is to bring them through and to put enough trees —what do you call those trees that you put on the end of landscaping — put those right in there and you're not going to have lights shining into those windows because you're not going to have CVS — did we determine how late CVS is open? Ms. Woodhouse: 10-00 at night. But I just want to say that the other reason why we opted not to put the entrance and exit in the back of the building was to keep that from being a cut off that would beused fr6rn street to street. In terms of the curb cuts and the road cuts, many of the decision that were made were made by the Department of Transportation in consultation with-the Town and those are their best recommendations and.decisions as to where they need to be placed. Ms. Masterson: Given the flow of the trucks. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. Ms. Masterson: But you changed the flow of the trucks, including the small trucks, and the reason for that is anybody who shops at Waldbaum's, even after they increased the truck-loading space in the back, still have trucks off-loading in the fire safety to get their produce into the store,and creating an incredible traffic jam and a hazard to the people trying to'exit from Waldbaum's. So, this is going to be pretty much of the same thing — not on the front but on the side. Curb cut in the front is very dangerous. All exiting of trucks should have the benefit of the light, not of the imagination. You're going to put a No Left-Hand Turn sign there but then the question we raise on Marlene Lane is that's fine, but what happened to the No Left Turn sign on the other side of the street preventing,supposedly, people from entering Main. Road and turning left across the traffic into Waldbaum's? See, some things you're trying but some things have been tried and'failed and then the sign disappeared just before we started these hearings. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Ms. Masterson: Do you want me to put my name down here? Ms. Woodhouse: Please. 32 Ms. Masterson: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes, Madame? Maureen Deegan, 855 Marlene Lane: Good evening. I'm glad that it sounds like the Planning Board and CVS have listened to some of the concerns of the residents in the area but it just sounds to me, after hearing tonight's presentation, that there are still a lot of things that need to be addressed. They're just like little bandaids being put on a situation. Ms. Woodhouse: Is there a specific concern that you have? Ms. Deegan: Yes, the No Left Turn — if you put a No Left Turn sign on the Main Road, feel like you're taking away the civil liberties of the residents of Marlene Lane. I understand that it might be something to address the situation but I also feel like you're — a day in February, at 11:00 in the morning, if you're going to tell me that I can't make a left turn, I think you're taking away my civil liberties. That's just an example of my fear of how some of these things are being addressed and I hope some better solutions can be brought up. .. Ms{.Woodhouse: I just need to remind you that that is a State road and these decisions tf iat you're talking about now are decisions made by the New York State Department of Transportation and you are free to communicate your concerns to them. They made the decision about the turn and sent a letter to the Planning Board of the Town informing them of that decision after doing a careful analysis of the traffic in the area. l Ms. Deegan: O.K. Thank you. Chairperson Woodhouse: You're welcome. I think the gentleman in the blue had his hand up first. Phil Rodelosso, 2815 Sigsbee Road: My concern —and, again, I commend the attorney, CVS, the Board on the changes that were made — I wasn't at the last meeting but I don't understand how— I don't think CVS has another store east of Mattituck so that means that most of these trucks are going-to be trying to go west once they leave and you can't make a left turn onto the Main Road. My question is where are they going to turn around and, if they go down Bay Avenue, they're going to have to go past a public beach and a children's playground and then'come up Sigsbee to make the left turn at the light. Ms. Woodhouse: We are not allowing the trucks to go in that direction. They're going to come out; they're going to make a right turn, going east and then go down further and make a left and come around. Mr. Rodelosso: Where are they going to make a left? Ms. Woodhouse: On Wickham. 33 Mr. Rodelosso: And then go up to the North Road. Ms. Woodhouse: Correct. Mr. Rodelosso: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: That's how they are being channeled right now. Mr. Rodelosso: So, theyre not allowed on Bay Avenue is what you're saying? Ms. Woodhouse: When they come out at either Sigsbee or Marlene; any traffic that is a truck will not be able to turn right and go down towards Bay. Mr. Rodelosso: O.K. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: You're welcome. I think this gentleman in,the suit and tie — Mr. Semon: Jeri, just a correction — it's possible that that traffic could make the right onto Bay after making the right on the Main Road but they're really not directed to do that. They're directed to get back onto 48 which is a truck route. Everybody knows that as well as 25. Their goal is to get up to Riverhead or up west, not back'over south and then up west. Vis. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir? { Joseph Singleton, 2135 Marlene Lane: Thank you, Madame Chairman and Members of the Board, I certainly want to compliment CVS and their team for giving us a shining example of something. I would like to address the question of the non-conforming use of the property. May I ask a question of the team? Is the architect here? Were you also the architect for the Riverhead store? You were not, o.k. I was just wondering why in the Riverhead store, which, I believe, is about 10,000 square feet, and this store- is 14,000. The paper had, I thought, a little larger but let's say it's around 15,000, 14,500 square feet. Why do we need a store that's 40% larger than the one in Riverhead which has a greater population? Ms. Woodhouse: I just want to address that.The existing building is 14;467 square feet and this is replacing the existing building. Mr. Singleton: I understand that, Madame Chairman. I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not CVS has any desires to subdivide this building in the future. (The answer from the audience was that they did not.) Will that be put into the building permit? Can that be put into the building permit? Ms. Woodhouse: Bruno — Bruno Semon: No, it would not. The building permit would be written for whatever is applied for so, at this point, if they apply for what is in front of us— however, Sir, just to 34 reiterate — if the use changed in the building and they decided to,subdivide that,,they would have to do an amended site plan application. Mr. Singleton: O.K. The second question I had is,that—and I believe I'm correct because I measured the ceiling tiles in the Riverhead store because the manager wouldn't tell my wife what size the store was— Ms. Woodhouse: Now, don't tell me that you want us to put that store here? Mr. Singleton: No, I think that this is a much better design even though it is 40% larger but.I do believe if they took off the back of the building — because the building, I think your engineers will tell you —they're going to have to re-build the building completely because there are significant cracks in the walls and the building is ready to fall down now. They could take off the back 10 or 20% to have that property—the buffer increased and the size of the building meet the needs of the area and yet do away with the non-conformance. I also — and this is the first time I've seen this revised plan —the buffer that they put. in to prevent the right-hard turn from the trucks, I think, should be more permanent than just a concrete curb somehow so that that cannot be changed in the future like the signs that Dr. Masterson meritioned about disappearing. The question really that],have is would CVS and the Town Board — and'rl understand building on existing site and for tax purposes and all of that, assessmey t purposes— would they consider reducing the size of the property of the building? 't could be done at relatively little cost and also consider putting their loading docks within the building so that the trucks are not out in the arking lot but are within the building at the rear. Chairperson Woodhouse: Let n.e just respectfully state that we can only act on an application that comes before us. We cannot make a suggestion for a different type of application. Mr. Singleton: That's the freedom of being a resident. Yes, but I've just asked that to CVS —would they consider either knocking down — because they want to make this a shining example of community efforts and design —would they consider knocking down the building, that part of the building that is in the non-conformance area and/or putting the loading dock with the building? Ms. Woodhouse: Is there somebody who wants to respond? Devin DalPos, Laker Development Group: We're the preferred developer for CVS. The answer to your question is no. Not to be a smart alec about it but we.looked very long and hard at the existing Code for the Town of Southold. Specifically, we wanted to be in Mattituck. We looked extensively at the area and what locations would be applicable to our needs and meet the Town's requirements. This property met those needs and, because of the nuances associated with the Code, fit to a tee. A couple of the things that you're not aware of with respect to the Riverhead store is that that has a mezzanine in the back inside for storage. This building, because of the way it is set up, has storage on the sides, inside so it's configured differently because we're making use 35 O/g(C*- d� of an existing building. There's a lot of changes that we've had to do from a corporate standpoint to make'this work and work within the Town's guidelines. One thing that Mr. Archer didn't state, that I think it's important to note, is that the trucks that deliver to CVS —that have CVS on the side of them —those are CVS trucks;owned and operated by CVS driven by.CVS drivers so they're required to do what CVS tells them to do and, if CVS tells them do not go south on Sigsbee, do not go south on Marlene, go,east on 25, get up to the truck,route on 25, that's exactly what they're going to do because their jobs are, in fact, on the line in.that regard. So, it's not something that is taken lightly. If they disregard a sign and they,get a ticket for it, one might say well, what's the big deal? The big deal is that the guy can lose his job. It's a lot bigger deal than taking that turn south. So, what's really most important to note is that we heard what you said last week or two weeks ago and there was a major concern with respect to truck traffic heading south bound on both of those roads and what we've done is out all of the items into place that we possibly can to insure that that would not happen. Another thing that I think is important to note that hasn't been brought up — my favorite topic— is we're taking down a building on the corner; we're greatly increasing the visual safety of that intersection. Right now, you come up to that intersection, there's a couple other things in the way when you come)up to the light that you can't see quite around Sigsbee Road but there's a building here, too, and,that's going away. That's greatly increasing the visual openness— it's-inviting. We're adding landscaping that isn't there. There's just a guardrail. There's concrete. There's parking all along Sigsbee. The pictures are right there. I can't stress that they're probably the best,ctures on the worst day possible that we could put up and it's an'eyesore.'It's an eyesore. And what we're proposing, what we've,come together with, with painstaking help lkom the Architectural 'Review Committee, who I have to applaud —'they really made us work hard on this one —to come up with this design that is specific to Mattituck, the Town of Southold. And I would hope that you'll agree it's a far significant improvement to what we're replacing or changing to the left. As you'll also notice on the left—see.where the,cars are„on the picture on the board on'the left? The majority of those cars are in front of what is a bar and a restaurant and not once in all of the —and I apologize for not being at the last meeting but I did read the minutes extensively= not once was it brought up that oh, we're losing a bar. We're not concerned,about people leaving the bar and heading south on Marlene; we're concerned about the trucks. I've got to tell you, as a parent, I'm. a lot more concerned about people leaving a bar and heading down my residential street. Unidentified Person in'Audience: But the bar doesn't do any business and that's a fact. Mr. DalPos: That's the reason why we're here tonight—the bar and the bowling alley aren't doing business. That's why we're here-Part of the question that came up a long time ago in many of the meetings=we've had many, many, many meetings with the Town,the Planning Board with their assistance in developing this plan —with the Architectural Review-Commit'tee a number of meetings - and these items have come up time and time again —why,are you here, what are you doing, why can't you go somewhere else, why can't we have the bowling alley? Because the bowling alley is not 36 making-money; it's outlived its economic usefulness. That happens. What we're proposing is a beautiful building. It's a great opportunity for folks, I think, here, hopefully — and I expect it will.because it happens,everywhere we go where there's competition . with other, pharmacies across the street= hopefully, you're going to see your prescription prices going down and your other prices going down. We expect that to happen. It happens everywhere we go. A couple of other comments, if I may, as far as.safety— right now, you currently have an access point on Route 25. It's a full access point. People can pull right out of there — out of the bar— onto State Route 25. They can pull out,of that full curb cut that's on . Marlene Lane and, on Sigsbee Road, they can't cross over to it right now but Sigsbee Lane, you have commercial vehicles that are parked along Sigsbee Road that are using that building on the corner. What we're doing here-is we're controlling the access points that weren't controlled before. We're also putting'in sidewalks that I certainly would encourage the Town to, in the future, down M.arlene'and Sigsbee for the children. As you come up to this intersection, you've got sidewalks; you've got,a new crosswalk that's being painted; you've got crosswalk lights to help facilitate people crossing streets. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Unid,ratified Person in Audience: May I just comment- I'm sorry, Madame Chairman — ma..�i I just respond for two minutes? Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me` You need to come up to the microphone. /f Unidentified Person' in Audience: I will — Ms. Woodhouse: Could I ask you to please make it brief because there are a number of other people we'd like to hear from. Please state your name. Joseph.Singleton, 2135 Marlene Lane: I believe the sidewalks are required. by Code, are they not? Ms. Woodhouse: The Town has requested it. Mr. Singleton: Secondly, will Old Main Road, that is in front of the building now, will that continue to exist as it is presently layed out? Ms. Woodhouse: No. Mr. Singleton: Is the Town giving CVS that property? Ms. Woodhouse: No. Mr. Singleton: Is that going to become green space? Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. 37 Mr. Singleton: That's going to become all green space? Ms. Woodhouse:Yes. Mr. Singleton: O.K. Bruno Semon: Sir, it's not owned by the Town. It's actually a New York State right-of- way. Mr. Singleton: O.K. The last question and then I'll sit down —you mentioned an August Td letter from the Department of Transportation — can that letter be made available before the Board makes a decision on this because, in contacting with the State, there were some real questions that were not answered and they, as of two weeks ago, agreed that they had not made some of the statements that were made at this last meeting so, if we could have that letter before a final determination (given a copy) — o.k., thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: I think someone back here and then this gentleman — go ahead. Thomas Gilroy, Marlene Lane: I also want to thank everybody for responding to the concerns that have been addressed in the past. I have one question, I guess, which may lead to a concern —the No Left-Hand Turn on Main Road — I'm assuming that's for cars also? I would be real concerned then if I was a Sigsbee resident because 'everyone who lives on Marlene, who wants to go to Main Road and go west, would now have to go down the block, which is a hazard to the people on south Marlene, around and then up Sigsbee. I think that would significantly increase the traffic on Sigsbee for people who want to go left on Main Road. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. This gentleman here. Ed McGlone: I'm a resident of Marlene Lane. I've been out here short of ten years. I've been visiting here for over fifty. I want to ask this Board if you have any position as far as the need for a CVS — is there a need for it? We're addressing how they can come here but today I had the opportunity to take pictures of their existing pharmacy in Riverhead and I've gone there on numerous occasions and it takes me between ten and fifteen minutes to get there. Fifteen minutes with traffic and ten minutes at 30 miles an hour. When I went there today, it took me twelve minutes. Why I'm talking like this is because we already have an Eckert right across the street. We have — and I know what happens with a big store like Eckert's.across the street—they will have to leave and that will be another store — and the ten years that I've been here, that mall has had one to four stores vacant at all times and I know how a strip mall doesn't do good for an area like this. Also, the houses on our block—on Marlene I can address — I know Sigsbee; my sister lives there; I know Bay and I know Factory—we're all going to be affected by this here pharmacy, CVS. Our properties —the last three properties on our block went from $600- 650,000. There's 25 houses on each side which is 50 houses. If you just took $500 — a 38 gIgl�� �J half a mil., you would be talking about an investment on Marlene Lane of over 25 million dollars. I think this Board should look into our feelings, our thoughts about,this investment that we have. That's only Marlene Lane. There is also another problem that I have with it. We had signs up on that corner. They lasted about— I think everybody will agree —two months and they were down. There were three signs — one across the street in the mall saying you couldn't make a left- hand turn —that's gone; one on that property that doesn't belong to us and it said you couldn't make a left-hand turn into the shopping area —that's gone and the one on our corner said you couldn't make a left-hand turn on 25 and that's gone. They lasted maybe, maybe two months. So, when you sit there and tell us that we have to go to the Department of Transportation, I wish someone would mention to the Department of Transportation that the signs were never replaced and we still have that existing condition. While I was in Riverhead today at 1:30, 1 went into the store and I guess I don't have to tell the Board — I've just taken up too much time for you —there's twenty aisles. They sell from — it's not a pharmaceutical —they sell from pizza pie to furniture, clothing. I witnessed two trucks there making deliveries. One was a Budget truck;.one was a truck with no writing on it but they were both making deliveries. There's a photography place. There's refrigeration. There's Pepsi Cola; there are soups. There's no nes:d for this. We have all of this already. It's only going to make us have more conditions�n these three streets that I mentioned. My wife and I — I am the father of nineteen children. I don't mention that for any other reason except that I'm concerned about them. We also have nineteen grandchildren. Fourteq.n of them were on our street today. They visit us often. That's why we came out.here. 1 always felt that from 105 to Orient Point was country. We know that CVS is in Riveread. If we decide to go there, we can go there. We don't need it to be on our corner. We know, also, that it opens them up to go further because it like a — kind of like whether it's good for them or not, I don't know— it's like a cancer. It will travel out to Southold; it will travel out to Greenport and there goes our country. And there goes what we came out here for. And I'm appealing to tnis Board, if you lived on our streets, would you want that approved? Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. McGlone: I beg this Board to please put yourselves in our position. There are other things that could be put on that corner that wouldn't interfere with our traffic conditions, other things that we don't have already. There is no need for it. You could have a medical building. You could have an office building. It wouldn't even interfere with us. All this drawing and all this here presentation is very nice, looks beautiful but when you put that trucking on our street and where you put it on this drawing, it helps us none. We have no need for a CVS there at all. I'm concerned with the children. I'm concerned with the safety. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. I just need to remind you that, while we personally might share many of the views of the community, our role, as a Board, is to act on the applications that we have in front of us and so we cannot make a decision as to whether a business is or is not suitable for our community. We can rule on the 39 S/9� C2o application and make sure that all of the legal things that need to be done and all the departments that need to be involved 'need to be involved.'So, I thank you for your comments but we need to address the issues that are in our purview. Mr. McGlone: I'm addressing directly the safety.issue for the children. That's a beach area. They're walking down, right from my doorway— Chairperson Woodhouse: I just want to say to you that the decisions of the Department of Transportation and the Town in regard to traffic and signage were really primarily to develop a plan that provided the maximum amount of safety for the residents of the area. And there is opportunity, however— and I urge all of you who have comments that relate to the Department of Transportation to please contact the Department of Transportation with your concerns_whether it's the left-hand signs, traffic lights or anything that relates to the State— Mr. McGlone: But at the Board of Appeals don't you take into consideration Mattituck— Ms. Woodhouse: We are not.the Board of Appeals. We are only the Planning Board and our responsibilities are very specific about how we can make decisions and what kind of decisions that we can make. Mr. McGlone: So; when we address thi7/Board,.Madame, we are bringing out factors to you that tell you how to approve orAiF pprove this — am I correct? Ms. Woodhouse: We can listen to what you have to say but the i/formation that you give us, we can consider the information that relates to the issues that we have to make, a decision upon whether it's landscaping, buffer zones, parking transportation, safety, coordination among the other agencies—those are the things that we can make a decision upon. Once the application comes to us, we can only deal with the merits of. the application. Mr. McGlone: So, the safety is part of it. Ms. Woodhouse: I believe that safety is part of it to'the extent that we have, under our purview, decisions that relate to safety. I think we've incorporated that in the ways that we could. Mr. McGlone: O.K. Thank you very much. Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. I think there was a woman in the back who had her hand up. Yes, Madame? Would you like to come here and you can use either microphone. Margaret Noone, 210 Sigsbee Road: My house is across the street from the entrance to where you are proposing the cut. Now, they say they're going to give us a 45-foot buffer. The residential lot that's across the street from my home is a 50400t lot. I'm a 45-foot lot. That's a 50-foot lot. My driveway would be then right across the street from that entrance and right next to my driveway is the driveway for Dickerson's Boat Yard. 40 Unidentified Person in Audience: Why don't you let her finish? Unidentified Person in Audience: I just want her to see the visual, too, so that she can see where her driveway and her house is in relation to what the plan is. It's important to know where that is. Mrs. Noone: I'll show you my driveway. This is my driveway, right here. Unidentified Person in Audience: Yes, that's your driveway, right there. Mrs. Noone: And this is Dickerson's driveway. Ms. Woodhouse: I need to ask you to, please, if you want to address the Board,if you would not mind going back to the microphone so we could hear you. Thank you. Ms. Noone: I can turn —there's three driveways—two on my side and then CVS. I don't know how they can do it. Dickerson is.always pulling boats into his driveway. He has a 20-foot trailer with a boat on it and then he has a pick-up truck trying to maneuver them in and it's like five maneuvers to get into the driveway and, if you're going to-have CVS' cut right across the street, I don't know how anybody is going to get in or out— including me to gFut in and out of my driveway. If the 'could move it up ten feet, 15 feet - it would be awfj�I. I can't understand how they can do it. It's a mess all the time and then Dick_son parks his cars on Sigsbee Road. It really is a problem — a big problem. . Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. This gentleman here and then this man here. I would encourage you — if you have new concerns or information that we have not heard from / before, that you address us on only new information or new concerns. Unidentified Speaker: Madame Chairman, Board: I'm not going to address the coming of CVS or whether I like it or don't like it. However, my thoughts are safety. Number One, it's hard for me to imagine those trucks coming in from the west, taking a right on Sigsbee, go down to the rear of the CVS property, take a left, go in there and then have to swing and go north and then go up and around the building, come down on the other side —there are people there who are going to be going from the store to their cars, from their cars to the store—there will be handicapped - ...(inaudible) room for it. And then when they get the left turns and the right turns up on the corner— it takes ten minutes to get out of there now and you're talking about the trucks over there. You say the trucks belong to CVS and they better watch out and do what they're told or they'll lose their job. How many of the trucks that supply this store are CVS trucks? There are soda trucks; there are beer trucks; there are toy trucks and every other kind of truck that don't belong to CVS and what they're going to do, they come out of that delivery and take the shortest route no matter what kind of a sign you put up. They had these signs on 25 like the gentleman was talking about before going into Waldbaum's. A lot of people didn't obey them. The cops were sitting right inside the parking field and watching them come in and do what they want any way. So, what's the point of a bunch of signs? That doesn't do a bit of good. I think this whole traffic situation here on the building,, on the property and at the intersections is terrible and, I should hope that there will be a better job done on that. Thank you. 41 g/9/off oU r� Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. Yes? Thomas Noone: Good evening. In reference to the lot that this young lady asked about - on the ruling- Lot 141, has that been ruled Commercial or is it Residential? Ms. Woodhouse: I don't have that map in front of me. Bruno, do you have the map there? Are you aware — Mr. Semon: No, because that lot number, that's not the actual Suffolk County Tax Map Number—that's an old lot number but I believe we're talking about the one that's on Sigsbee, almost directly across from your house, Mr. Noone? Mr. Noone: That's right. Mr. Semon: Right now, we're showing it Residential, R-40, on the CVS site plan. Our zoning map shows it as a business property so I'm not exactly sure. I would tell you that our zoning map is probably correct but on their site plan it's indicated as R-40. Mr. Noone: So; it's still Residential? Mr. Semon: R-40. Mr. Noone: How long is that going to stay Residential? Mr. Semon: Until the Town Board re-zones it. If the Town Board entertains.a change of zone —there is'no change-of-zone application that we know of at this time.. Mr. Noone: O.K. One other question — if it's used for a year as Commercial, doesn't that. automatically make it Commercial? Bruno Semon: No, it does not. Ms. Woodhouse: Change of zone would be at the direction of the Town Board. Mr. Noone: That would be? Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. Mr. Noone: O.K. Is there a possibility of moving the driveway up? Devon DalPos: Let me just kind of point out to the Noones,'as well as the Board, where the driveway is in relation.to their house so they can see better because now it's just conceptual. (referred to plan) You know, when you stand at your house and you look across the street, you're fearful that there's going to be a building sitting right there. The building that's there is the building that's there. We're making it look like that so you're going to.see that as opposed to the big.brick thing you see in the back. I think there's a fence. I think there are garages and stuff like that but the actual driveway is actually 42 5/Tl®* across from the boatyard's ...(interrupted). You're right here. We come out this way, right here. The lot across from you we're maintaining as a landscaped lot. Unidentified Person in Audience: You're giving us 45 feet. That lot is 50 feet. Mr. DalPos: We're keeping this and enhancing the landscaping on this property. Unidentified Person in Audience: That's 45 feet; it'should be 50 feet. Chairperson Woodhouse: Excuse me. You need to come to the microphone and address the Board one at a time. We have someone there right now. Mr. Noone, are you finished? (He had no further comments.) You need to please re-state your name. Margaret Noone: I'm.sorry. It is a 50-foot lot directly across the street, Residential, from my home. And they were talking about a 35-foot buffer which means they would go 5 feet into a residential lot to connect. That's what they've been telling me but now he just said it is 50 feet so I don't know. It's going to be crazy with three driveways. Mr. DalPos (referring to map): Here it's 45 where it narrows down and it widens out to 50 feet here across from your home. i Mrs. Noone: Right because that's what all the lots on Sigsbee are — 50-fool/lots It's still going to be awful unless you move that because Dickerson always has huts coming in and out and we can't get out as it is. ...(inaudible) Now you're going to have CVS there. There's going to be traffic rigl�;i in front of my house, not just up the corner. Chairperson Woodhouse: !hank you. The gentleman over here. Would you please state your name for the record. Walter Koch: I am the owner of the Dickerson's Marine property; I am also the proprietor of Dickerson's Marine.'When I think of all the people that are going to be negatively impacted on this property—this improvement— it's going to be me. The reason I'm saying that is that I'm there since 1957 — not me, but the business — and the business hasn't really changed its' structure in anyway. We're still doing the same business we always have. There are two things that I'm finding a problem with -one more so than the other. I have no objection to CVS being there and I do believe that the issue of having my driveway face the driveway of CVS is going to be a problem although I think I can address that. The problem that I don't seem to be able to address is that I am in the boating business. When people come to visit me, whether to buy a quart of oil or to bring their boat in for service, they have to be able to stop some place to come in and purchase something. Right now, there are parking spaces along the side of my property that are utilized for that reason. There is some spill-over into the residential area which we try to stop but I don't always have control over my customers. The site plan, the way I see it, eliminates those spaces along the side of my property. The State has already taken away any possibility of people parking in front of my business and now the Town seems to be wanting to take away any possibility of me parking along side of my 43 01NO business which leaves a customer of mine who wants to come in and talk with me, and has a boat behind him, no place to go. I've tried to address some representatives from CVS at a sort of informal meeting and they have offered to try to help me by trying to work out a traffic flow plan that will allow me some parking on the side of my business, either through moving the curb in on my side or changing the lanes the way they are going up to the corner so that I have some possibility of at least having a space big enough to have one truck, one boat, maybe a parked car— I'm looking for some help in the fact that I'm going to be practically put out of business with no parking around my property and I think that's a.much bigger negative thing than having people turn left or right or trucks being viewed'in another parking lot. I feel very negatively affected and I'm looking for some help, some way that I can have some space to park cars or have my customers come and visit with me without having offended my neighbors and without offending CVS or the Town and I'm looking for some solution to that. I don't know what that is but I did speak with the gentlemen here and they offered to help me. I haven't heard back yet and I didn't hear mention of me or my dilemma in the preliminary talk. So, I'd like some assurance that some people will try to come and. help me. I also have an appointment, I believe, with Mr. Semon who is going to come and talk to me about addressing my problems of parking and that hasn't happened yet. Bruno Semon: That's because, Sir, your problem with parking on the Town right-of-way is going to be addressed by the Town Attorney and the Director of Code Enforcement. Both of those people,have to be thereat Vie meeting I had sent'an e-mail to them after speaking to you so your best bet is to folfbw up with the Town Attorney about the parking dilemma on Sigsbee Road basically. Mr. Koch: On Sigsbee Road or on the Main Road? l Mr. Semon: Main Road is not our jurisdiction. That would be New York State Department of Transportation. We're just concerned about the Town right-of-way. 'Mr. Koch: Can't I somehow appeal to the CVS people to help me with this dilemma? Chairperson Woodhouse: I think you indicated that you spoke with them and I see by the shaking of Mr. Archer's head that there is probably some agreement between the two of you - Keith Archer, Esg:: We had a discussion and we're going to continue the discussion. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Mr. Koch: What 1 want to mostly do is sort of state for the record that I'm having a problem with this and it's not that I'm having a problem with CVS; I'm having a problem with their impact on me. After 57 — in 1957, we were there and I would like to be able to stay there a little longer. I've developed a business and a working relationship with the community and I'd like to maintain that in some form. I expect to be inconvenienced but don't expect to be put out of business. 44 Ms. Woodhouse: Thank.you. Thank you for putting it on the record. Is there someone else who would like to address the Board who has not spoken? Mike Kelly: I live on Marlene Lane as well. I'm a new resident there. I also live in Floral Park and, just something for the Town to understand which you probably do understand with a store like CVS, it starts in Mattituck. It's going to work its way east to Peconic, to Cutchogue and so on. It's just going to happen. This is going to be a template for the stores that will move east. We see here some of the greenery and some of the buffer and I think it's a fete a complete that CVS is going to move their store in there. If this is the rendering of what it's.going to look like, it's a nice Colonial building but we need more greenery to buffer the Sigsbee and Marlene residents from this building.—even on Jericho. The Town needs to be cognizant of that as well for all of the other stores that are going to be put in place. We need something like that, not only for a CVS but for other establishments that are going to be going in along 25. The other thing that we also addressed was the safety—that is, the safety of the children. I understand the Town doesn't have too much to do with it; it's the State. We'll get together and we'll deal with the State but there is going to be more volume of vehicles on Marlene and on Sigsbee as well. Right now, my grandkids, they can walk down to the beach. If you know Marlene, right now, there's a.big dip in the road. As more vehkle traffic goes down that road, it's going to be more of a hazard to those people ' to the kids and to the adults as well. There is just going to be more traffic. Even mare so on Sigsbee.if you can't make the left turn on to 25 - on to Main Road. People are going to.make a right turn, go around; go down Marlene and go up Sigsbee as well. It's going to be a hazard. It's going to be a vehicle hazard. It's going to be a pedestrian hazard. We need the support of the Town with the State to look at it more deeply to see what,can be done to reduce the vehicle traffic as a result of this store. But, in addition to that, this is going to be a template as CVS moves east. And it's going to happen. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr. Kelly: I Would like to ask CVS what type of greenery, what type of buffer" is it going to be significant on the side or the frontof this store? Inaudible Speaker from Audience: ... Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me. Mr. Kelly: I mean, is it going to be a tree'that—we're seeing an overhead, as far as the ground level, where these trees start. Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me, Mike, would you please speak into the microphone and state your name. Michael Junahans, VHB: I'm with VHB. We're the engineering design firm that put together the site plans. In answer to the question about the landscaping, in the back of the store we're maintaining all the existing trees and then we're going to densify that 45 Ov ja+ existing tree buffer by adding, on the Marlene side, about another 25 feet worth of landscaping because, if anybody knows, .right now on the Marlene side the asphalt goes almost up to the residential area. That's all going to be cut back and the landscaping is going to be increased to about 45 feet on that side. On the left side, the landscape is all green to about 50 feet. That's going to be maintained and additional ornamental plantings are going to be added up near Sigsbee to additionally densify that also. So, in the end,.we're actually going to have a much better buffering to the residents than exists today. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Is there someone else who would like to address the Board who hasn't spoken? Yes, Madame? Devon DalPos; Laker Development Groin Sorry— can I just add to what Mike just said? The rendering that's done is done with the landscaping kind of low and not— it doesn't really take into account the actual landscape plan because that drawing is done by the architectural firm and they're focusing on the architecture. So, when you're look,ng at that and you're trying to relate that to this, you can't do it. You've got to look at this plan and, unfortunately, sorry to say, you've got to visualize it on that plan. We don't have that tool capable yet to put that on there. Just so you know. Thank you for your comments. Jo Ann Lechner: Hello. I live on Marlene Lane. I'm a part-time resident. We moved out here thinking maybe to retire within the area. I'd like to see the site plan with the road. I'm very confused on that. Could you switch those around, please? No, the other one. Are you widening roads on the side streets? Yes, no? I thought I heard that. j Ronald Hill, Dunn Engineering Associates: On Sigsbee, we're putting in new curbs where none exists'now because you have asphalt going right up— Ms. Lechner: That wasn't my question. My question was are you widening — I heard something about widening the roads, putting a lane down the middle and having one lane, two lanes, three lanes— Mr. Hill: There will be no more —'there's less asphalt with this. I would say no, there isn't any widening. Ms. Lechner: Can you tell .me what the asphalt is there now— how wide it is? Mr. Hill: It,runs from one side of Sigsbee to the building. Ms. Lechner: I understand that—feet? Mr. Hill: Oh. It's going to be about 37 feet. It probably, right now, is closer to 45. Ms. Lechner: So, you're narrowing'the.road? Mr. Hill: Correct - if you count that head-in parking that's up against the building. 46 Ms. Lechner: I don't understand what you mean by head-in parking. Mr. Hill: There's parking up against the plumbing supply building that heads in. Ms. Lechner: You're actually narrowing the road and putting,a line in on both sides? Mr. Hill: There's a curb on both sides. Ms. Lechner: I heard something.about widening a road. Mr. Hill: No, we're re-striping it with two lanes north-bound instead of one. Ms. Lechner: So, will these people be able to park in front of their homes on either side — Marlene Lane or Sigsbee? Mr. Hill: Sure because this re-striping is all by the CVS site.'There is nothing to the south. There are no changes to the south. Ms. Lechner: Are the openings at the beginning of 25 to Sigsbee and Marlene going to the same side? I'm talking about here. Are these widening here? Mr. Hill: No, not really. Right now, there's a lot of extra asphalt out there and lve're putting in curbs that define the road. It's.all within the right-of-way. _ Ms. Lechner: I understand that— Mr. Hill: And there is less(.— asphalt is coming out and lawn is going in where there is P 9 9 g currently asphalt. And it's more uniform, I should say. Ms. Lechner: Basically, putting these cut-ins on the street, you're going to have much more traffic. I heard sidewalks before, that we should have sidewalks on our street. Chairperson Woodhouse: Sidewalks are parallel to where the CVS'property is. Ms. Lechner: All right. Ms. Woodhouse: It's not going down the street. Ms. Lechner: I understand that but I also heard a comment before that, for our children to play, we should put sidewalks in. Unidentified Person in Audience: I didn't say that. Ms. Lechner: Well,.somebody did and I don't think, at this point, it's changing the quality of life for the people on the street and the children on the street. We moved there with the understanding =we knew before we moved in —that there's the beach in the back and we have the beach traffic going down which we knew before we bought. So, if it gets a little crowded, shame on me. I purchased it; I put my money into this property. 47 i o2,�cf We came out here for the quality of life, for the quality of children, people, quiet, trees, streets '— not trucks. It wasn't addressed what happens to these small trucks — Coca Cola delivers; Entemann's delivers. Where are they all going? CVS cannot control them. They will be coming down — I mean, if I was the driver, I'd probably do the same thing —the shortest way would be going around if I have to but I'll go through the neighborhood to get where I have to go. Children walk the street. You can't get out of these streets now even with the light there. It takes forever to make that left: Now you're going to be putting trucks there. The trucks will stop. The trucks will have to pull in; the trucks will have to pull out. There has to be a better way to address this because it appears it's commercial property. They have their rights but what happened to we, the people who live on these streets, who.pay the taxes. Do we have any quality of life or doesn't that count any more? And I think the whole thing has to be addressed with the Department of Transportation, with the people who live there but I don't'think that's happening and I wish the Board would postpone this, that maybe we can get the Department of Transportation involved so that everybody can sit down and come up with a logical conclusion. You have kids walking down these streets and, yes, we all have lawns to the front but we like it that way,and the kids do walk in the street and they take their little boats down and their rafts down and they go to the beach. Now, you're going to have traffic. If you can't go one way, you have to go the other way. So, now you're affecting everyone and I really don't think that's fair. I've heard here before, which haven't heard anywhere else since I am front) Nassau County, good neighbors— neighborly. They think of the neighbors who ive there. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Ms. Lechner: You're welcome. .Ms. Woodhouse: Is there someone else who would like to address the Board with new information? Yes? Richard Zahra: I have a house on Marlene Lane also. I'd like to know if CVS is going to provide any kind of security to their parking lots when the store is closed at night to prevent kids from hanging out and drinking and burning rubber in the parking lots at night because that's what is being done now. And with the bushes that are going to make everything look pretty, it's also going to conceal these kids hanging out. Is there any kind of a plan to prevent these kids from using this as a playground late at night? Ms. Woodhouse: Is there someone who —that's a local police issue, an enforcement issue. Mr. Zahra: Well, is there going to be, any kind.of security cameras that the store is going to have to monitor the parking lot or anything like that? You're going to be making a bigger parking lot than is there presently and they hang out there: My house is very close to this and I have to listen to this stuff at night with these kids hanging there. You're going to just make it more inviting for them where they're concealed with all these bushes. So, there is no plan for any kind of security? 48 Y Keith Archer, Esg.: The answer is, is that to the extent that CVS becomes aware of a problem, they would address it with the local authorities because they don't want that to be a problem within the community as it may,exist now. I mean, as you said, Madame Chairman, it is a local issue but CVS is conscious of it and:, if we're aware of it, we'll make the Town aware of it and we'll take steps,to stop it—that's for sure. Chairperson Woodhouse: Thank you. Mr:'Zahra: One other thing — is there a rendering showing what we're going to be looking at from the Marlene side? This isn't showing the Marlene side. I believe there's a loading dock that's going to be over there. We don't have a clue what that's going to look like. Is that available to us? Also, I assume that they're going to have dumpsters. Is that going to be in plain sight or going to be blind? John Montalto, MMA Architects: This is an elevation drawing,that was presented at the last hearing that shows all four elevations. Mr. Zahra: That's what we're going to be looking at? Mr. Montalto: Yes. Mr. Zahra: Not a whole lot better than what we have now. We'll be looking at blank walls. Th F is a residential neighborhood. All right. I said what I had to say. 'Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you. f Mr. Archer?: We'd like to show him what he's looking at now, Madame Chairperson. Unidentified People in Audience: We know. We know. We've been looking at it for years. Nicholas Deegan, 855 Marlene Lane: There's two things. What percentage of CVS stores don't have a curb cut onto the Main Road that they're on? Chairperson Woodhouse: Excuse me, I could not hear that question. Mr. Deegan: What percentage of CVS stores don't have a curb cut onto the Main Road that it is situated on? Ms. Woodhouse: A curb cut— Mr. Deegan: A curb cut— a driveway in and out. We all refer to curb cuts as entryways. Ms. Woodhouse: You're talking about the entranceway to the front which the Department of Transportation has'removed from these plans? Mr. Deegan: Exactly.. 49 I�C Ms. Woodhouse: The New York State Department of Transportation has removed it. Mr. Deegan: I recognize that, Madame Chairwoman, but what percentage of CVS stores are like that? Keith Archer, Esq.: I don't have the answer to that, Madame Chairman, but not only with respect to CVS but with respect to any development that currently is. occurring:on State roads, their program is to limit curb cuts on State roads and, particularly, in this area. So, while I can't'tell .you generally what the percentage is, I could tell you that it's an issue that not only CVS faces but any type of development on State roads. Mr. Deegan: Yes, well, I can see it particularly in this event because you're trying to shoe horn this building into a site that it doesn't belong there. It may look very pretty on paper but it's not workable. As my father used to say, paper never refused ink. You can draw all you want on it but it's not going to make this thing work any better if I had to make it look pretty and with what colors you put on it there. On the shrubbery—you don't have an elevation. We don't know how close it's going to be and you don't have a height: Are you going to have Jupiter two feet along the ground or are you coming up with something? Mr. Archer: We actually have it. Mike, is that it on the plan? Michael Junghans: It's on the table. J Mr. Archer: If you want, Mike Junghans can go up — l Mr. Deegan: Anyway, I don't even,think we should be addressing that. It should be a non-issue here because this building does not belong in this situation. If anybody from the Planning Board is familiar with that intersection and those streets, you can see how complicated that intersection is'already and to tell me that you can put in the new striped lanes, two going north and two going south, on Factory Avenue —the real estate is not there for this. It's just not doable. What are you going to create — road rage with people trying to by-pass one another on 50 yards of double lanes? Somebody trying to beat another person to the corner? It's a road rage situation you are creating here. I just hope you take the time one other thing is what is the role of the Planning Board 'in this? You recommend to somebody else to approve this or disapprove of it? . Chairperson Woodhouse: Are you talking about the roads and the curb cuts? Mr. Deegan: The whole situation here —whether CVS gets permission or not. Ms. Woodhouse: Our role is to review the site plan. Mr. Deegan: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: And to make a decision on the site plan. Mr. Deegan: So you will deny or approve on what you think works and doesn't work? 50 Ms. Woodhouse: -No, not necessarily. If it meets the.criteria that we are evaluating and, if all of the requirements of the Town Code are met, we make our decision based on that. It's not whether we personally want to see this store or that store or a house or whatever—that's not the kind of decisions that we can make, Mr. Deegan. Mr. Deegan: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: What we are looking at is the application that comes before us, whether it meets the requirements of all the various agencies, Department of Health, Transportation — Mr. Deegan: Environment? Ms. Woodhouse: If there's an environmental review, yes, environmental review. All of those reports have been done -when we read the resolution, there's a summary of all of the various agencies and their reports. When they have satisfied all of the requirements, we are making a decision based on that. We can condition; we can make recommendations along the way in the areas that we have'jurisdiction over. It could be things like landscaping, certainly signage, working with.the Architectural Review Board on the appropriate materials. I think those of you who have been here from the beginning could acknowledge that what you are looking 'at right now is very diff rent from the original plan. It looks nothing like the plan that we saw on Day One..Those changes would never have been made without the direct involvement of all of you who have been there all alon�'and the Planning Board has visited the site and has reviewed all of the reports to mak/6 our decisions. Mr. Deegan: So, what you are saying is, if all of this is met— even though the building doesn't suit the area, you're still going to approve it? Ms. Woodhouse: If it is a business that is in a business zone, we cannot deny on that basis. Mr. Deegan: No, I'm not asking you _if you create a traffic hazard or a safety issue or an environmental issue and the environmental.issue'comes up with,trucks,parked on the side of the road, waiting to get into the parking lot Ms. Woodhouse: I hear what you're saying —what you're asking—what I think you're asking, is for us to forecast what JS going to happen in the future and make a decision based on that. What we can do now, is we can ask the State Department to review it, which we have—the Department of Transportation —to come up with all the information they have, the best and safest plan for this point in time. What we have to rely upon in the future is that you, and everybody else here who lives in the area,.watch what happens, monitor the situation, work closely with the Town, the Department of Transportation and the agencies to suggest changes, to point out problems when they occur so that they can be addressed immediately. And that's why there has to be the involvement of all of you in the community working with us on,those areas. I think the man from CVS indicated that that is a business,,that if there are security issues, they 51 �lql�- will address it. We certainly can't foresee what can happen in terms —we know that there are problems with access to roads.all over the Town of Southold. We cannot make decisions on what may or may not happen in the future but we can work to make sure that all of the agencies that can be involved are involved and, in this particular case, there's been very much involvement from every agency—the Department.of Transportation —these plans, I have to say, have been gone over very, very— I am confident.that they have all been looked at by the appropriate people. Does it mean that we have an absolutely perfect plan and a perfect situation — no, that will never exist. Mr.' Deegan: Can you say that this building does not belong in this particular site even though it is zoned for business because of the traffic pattern? Ms. Woodhouse: I cannot make that determination. I could not say that. That would be not a decision that I would make. Does the Department of Transportation feel that they have made the recommendations to ensure the safety—they have signed off on it; the engineers,have signed off on it and they believe that they have done the best job that they can. Can they be influenced to change it? They can. There will be time—there's always time for you to work with the Department of Transportation to make changes if there is a conditional approval on a site plan, there is a time period in which you can work with other agencies to make those changes.and I would encourage you to do so. Is there someone else who has'not spoken and/would like to speak? Unidentified Person in Audience: I'd just like to address— Ms. Woodhouse: That's great but I think there's a woman behind you who hasn't spoken. Unidentified Person in Audience: I just want you to answer one question. Ms. Woodhouse: You need to come forward. Could I ask you please to make it brief because-we have a whole agenda that we haven't gotten to yet. Unidentified Person in Audience: The garbage that Richie brought out.that you were addressing — he asked about that and didn't get an answer. I was there today at 1:30 and the garbage in Riverhead was flowing out of the dumpsters. There's a gate around it but it wasn't locked. Now, that is today at 1:30 and that's what's going to happen to us and I want this Board to know that these are the things that are happening to us and they can be addressed and you.can go back to the State and tell them that we have new concerns. Maybe that will help also. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes, Madame? Bruno Semon: Sir, could you stateyour name? You didn't do that and write it down there. Unidentified Person in Audience: Ed McGlone. I put my name down here. I'm the Vice President of the Marlene Lane Association. 52 ggjo f Ms. Woodhouse: Thank you, Sir. Yes, Madame? Mary Singleton, Marlene Lane: Good evening. Yes, this is all very nice although l don't see anything about the side of Marlene Lane and that's kind of a little slick presentation because that side —the commercial side — is not in the picture. However, I know that you said that you work with certain criteria and I heard Josh Horton, on television on Saturday night, being interviewed by Patrick Halpern(sp.?) on Meet the Leader addressing this very issue — commercialization in the Town of Southold. And, for those who don't know it—we're called "the Land of No". I'm quoting Josh Horton. We're called the Land of No because we say no to big boxes and over development and we're striving - and you are doing an admirable job —on trying to preserve the quality of life as we know it. People come from Queens, Manhattan, everywhere to come out to the country. We are the last piece of country that you can come to in a day's drive on all of Long Island. It is slipping away. Make no mistake about it—this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. You're the gatekeepers. You are opening the gate to the first big box in the Town of Southold. It's not as big as Home.Depot but this size.building is a big box. I , know you've done wonderful work. I hope your legacy will not be that this is the Planning Board that opens the door to the first big box in the Town of Southold. Ms. Woodhouse3: I think we have one last comment. Joseph Sinn bton: I'm the husband of the last speaker. Madame Chairman,, I certainly endorse what my wife says all the time, but especially tonight, in complimenting the Board for their very difficult job. I want to thank counsel for giving me a copy of this l' letter. I think it's important that this is a letter dated April 3rd from the - / Keith Archer, Esg.: August 3rd Mr. Singleton: I'm sorry. I apologize., It's getting late. August 3, 2004, less than one week ago. Is that correct? And it was sent to Dunn Engineering, a well respected firm but it raises seventeen points about this plan — all,of which, I'm sure, cannot be answered in these short period of times, having worked with the Department of Transportation on other issues. There are seventeen items. I would like to go back.to one of the other speakers saying can we bring the State Transportation Department representatives to this meeting to answer some of the questions. You've said several times, and I believe you, that the State is limiting access from the Main Road. Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. Mr. Singleton: But they are not stopping it completely. In fact, tonight you had a hearing where you put some residential exits onto the Main Road — I think, on the Laurel Lake property there. Looking at this beautiful rendering here, it is my understanding that this property in the front is not a park; it is a greenbelt. Is that correct? Ronald Hill: It's technically called a beautification area. 53 Mr. Singleton: It is not a park, is that correct? There is no reason that a proper coordination with the light at Sigsbee, that an entrance and exit could not be put at that light and all traffic coming from the Main Road, with no traffic onto Sigsbee or Marlene? It's very possible there. You've got a depth of about maybe 50 feet right opposite Factory Avenue. I would appeal that we get the State Department of Transportation here. I mean, they've got seventeen questions to get answered any how-that we get them and bring them to a meeting like this so that we can address that question of why can't they coordinate it onto the Main Road. Madame Chairman, I do not see anything in this letter- and I've just been reading it and'trying to listen at the same time and I can hardly do both -which says you cannot come out on Main Road. In this letter I do not see that. Ms. Woodhouse: Mr. Hill? Ronald Hill: There was an earlier letter and we had an entrance onto Main Road and we were asked to remove it. We asked for, in the alternative -we had originally proposed full access. In the alternative,.we asked for right turns,in and right turns out. They denied that. That was in earlier letters. The gentleman talks about,the seventeen points. They were all minor. We've already revised the plans to conform to what the DOT has asked for. There were things like please change park area to beautification area. There were some item numbers that they wanted a couple of notes but nothing of any substance at all. And they have been firm all along in not granting any access to 25 while we had frontage on both Sigsbee and Marlene. The gentleman is correct-they are still granting access to 25 -that's where parcels are landlocked and they have no / other access available.If you have a side street, they demand that,you take your / access from the,side street. 111 Mr. Singleton: Again, I would appeal-'to the Board to consider bringing the.Town here- I don't doubt that they sent a different letter but, in this letter, they also are quoting "local residents are in favor of restricting left turn from Marlene.Lane". I don't know if a survey was done on that but I don't believe that any of us who are here tonight were questioned on that-whether we want- Ms. Woodhouse: There was some correspondence and there were comments that were made at the previous hearing that were in the record - Mr. Singleton: O.K. Ms. Woodhouse: -that were shared with the State Department- Mr. Singleton: All right. Thank you. Ms. Woodhouse: You're welcome. I think it's time that we're going to ask that we close the hearing. Unidentified Person in Audience: One final comment, if I may,. Madame Chairman, just a clarification very quickly- 54 Ms. Woodhouse: State your name and this is it. Devon DalPos, Laker Development Groug: One of the statements that the DOT stated — one that you just referred to, Mr. Singleton, is we previously recommended that left turns be restricted from Marlene. Additional discussion with the Town of Southold personnel indicates that they and local residents are in favor of restricting left turns from Marlene, therefore, please revise the plans to include appropriate signage to enforce this restriction — underlining the word recommendation. That's my point. They're recommending in virtually all of their other.items, they require items so this may be an opportunity where that could be discussed with the DOT. What we've done is, this evening's comments, if I can summarize, appear to be virtually identical to last meeting's comments. Nothing new has been.brought up. We have addressed all of those items specifically to limit the primary concern which is truck traffic southbound 'in both of�those locations. We've done everything we possibly can physically and with . visual cues to accommodate that plus our CVS trucks, certainly, and our vendors will be instructed accordingly. So, we've done what we can do to the best of our ability. We do have an existing use or existing building.' It is an as of right use. We are not requesting any variances and we are a permitted use in this zone. I ask that the Board consider that and please vote on this this evening. Thank you. Unidentified Person in Audience: Can I just add a point of clarification? Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me. (simultaneous conversation) One at a time and YeJ must come and identify who you are. Ronald Hill, Dunn Em/lineerina: On the recommended ,restriction that the DOT has recommended, we 6d argued against that with the DOT in prior correspondence. We looked at accident statistics for that intersection and we didn't find that there had been any significant accident problems. Our capacity analysis said that this shouldn't be a problem there and I think it was an out-growth of this last hearing, and the recommendations that you'forwarded, that they made that decision so that's a decision, think, that can be re-visited and, certainly, CVS has no problem with that. Unidentified Person in Audience: As a matter of fact, Madame'Chairman, we have no objection to the Board conditioning — Ms. Woodhouse: You need to go to the microphone and state who you are. Keith Archer, Esg.: We certainly have no objection to the Board conditionally approving the project subject to this further discussion with the DOT on this issue. We do not have a problem,with that. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. Mr. Archer: Because really this is a — as you said — so clearly, this is an off-site issue. It's not really a site plan issue and we'd be happy to participate in the continuing dialogue with the DOT. Thank you. 55 02�� Joseph Singleton: Madame Chairman and Members of the Board, the residents of Marlene Lane have no problem with the Board postponing a decision tonight so we can arrange a meeting with the Department of Transportation directly. So we ask you to hold that decision tonight because we want to explore coming in from Main Road and not residential streets, Thank you. Hannah Masterson: Madame Chairman, would you please find out what happened to those two lots that are Residential while we wait to see what happens with the transportation because it is then a question of usage. Chairperson Woodhouse: The usage issue has been determined already by the Building Department. Ms. Masterson: Did the Building.Department find that these were Residential, 40, and then ask that this be changed? Bruno Semon: Nobody is asking for a change of zone and I think that you keep referring back to a possible change of zone. The zoning line was indicated on the zoning map done by the Town Board many years ago, back in the '80s. It has not changed and, at this point— Ms. Masterson: That is a proper use of Residenti-I property? Mr. Semon: The zoning line, which goes through those'properties, is the zoning line. It's been done and there's no change proposed. J Ms. Masterson: I know but the zoning line going throe/gh separates Commercial from Residential on that property. Mr. Semon: Which currently shows half, or a good portion of the back end, of the building in the Residential Zone. Ms. Masterson: So that is permissible to have part of the building and whatever— I'm just clarifying. Ms. Woodhouse: In this particular situation, this is a pre-existing usage. Today, if you came in and applied, it would not be the same.. Ms. Masterson: So then the question people should be instructed to give is, would the new rules cover pre-existing buildings, the answer is no? Ms. Woodhouse: No. Ms. Masterson: All right,.now, that's for the record? Ms. Woodhouse: Right. Ms. Masterson: No: 56 �(�(ol- Ms. Woodhouse: No. O.K. One more. JoAnn Lechner: The dumpsters are going to be on Marlene Lane. Can you show me specifically where they are and how you're going to control it? If you can't control it—the problem, too, is everybody comes in — a company comes in, a corporation —you're in business to make money which is understandable but, once you get in, everybody goes like this and washes their hands. And, unfortunately once the Board approves something, then there's no recourse so this is a big concern. Unidentified Speaker from Audience: There are two garbage areas proposed. Ms. Lechner: What am I looking at? I'm sorry; I'm a little thick when it comes to — Michael Junghans, VHB: On the Marlene side of the building, there are two garbage enclosures. One directly adjacent to the building in this hatched area here which has a fenced enclosure around it, a solid fence, gated on the front. And another one in the rear also with a complete enclosure with gates on the front. Ms. Lechner: And what is across the street here? Mr. Junghans: T /ere's a residence here but it's all enclosed and you won't be able to see the dumps4er. Ms. Lechner: No, it's not only seeing it— it's smelling.it. l Mr. Junghans: There's no food. Ms. Lechner: You don't have milk there? You don't have produce there? In any CVS I've been in, you do have milk products. You have eggs and everything else. That is garbage. That will smell after a while. And, how do you know Mr. Junghans: They are going to be emptied on a regular basis. Ms. Lechner: What is a regular— he just went there to one of your stores today and there was garbage overflowing. Mr. Junghans: We're going to make a note on that. - Simultaneous Discussion - Ms. Lechner: Can I ask a question in regard to this is an old foundation, I am assuming, and they're going to destroy the building down to the foundation. Is that what you're doing? Chairperson Woodhouse: No, they are not destroying the building down to the foundation. 57 Ms. Lechner: O.K. So, in other words, when we go by there, those walls should be up? Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. Ms. Lechner: I also request that the Board postpone this so that we can talk to the Department of Transportation. You're affecting our lives. We pay taxes in this district; CVS doesn't. Ms. Woodhouse: You have the right to continue to work with the Department of Transporation. That has nothing — Ms. Lechner: We respectfully request—we're asking that you postpone making this decision tonight until we talk to the Department of Transportation in order to reach an amicable conclusion to this whole project. You're talking about, well people said, and we took a survey— I never saw a survey. They were talking about a survey—these right turns, left turns, whatever it was. I've never seen a survey. I live on the block. All right? My neighbors— I talk to them frequently-they have not received a survey. You're making decision based on they said, he said, maybe= Ms. Woodhouse: I just want to reiterate — in terms of.the transportation —the transporation has been reviewed by the Town's Transportation Department and all of their recommendations are in the final site plan. It has been reviewed by the Town's- Highway Department, by the Town's Police Department'and it has been reviewed by the State Department of Transportation. Inaudible Comment from Audience: ...... Ms. Woodhouse: There is public information that is available to you.-There is no procedure where every time we would get a report, the report is released to the general public but it'is available and there are people in the community who have come in and have looked at the reports and those are available for you to look at. All of those reports are there. You can request them, as people have done. The recommendations of each of the various steps that we have gone through are incorporated in this plan. You may continue, those of you who are concerned about what the Department of Transportation is doing on State roads - you can continue to contact and work with the Department of Transportation. We cannot make a decision for the Department of Transportation. Ms. Lechner: I'm not asking you to. Ms. Woodhouse: There is time:for you to:work with them to modify that. Ms. Lechner: I am requesting that you postpone it. Ms. Woodhouse: I understand what you are asking. I understand what you are asking. Ms. Lechner: Unfortunately, this is,going to become Riverhead. 58 �lR�a�F Ms. Woodhouse: I understand. You're asking for a review of the transportation decision by the Department of Transportation on the State road. Ms. Lochner: To postpone the decision until we have a chance to review with them — Keith Archer, Esq.: Madame Chairman, if I could — Ms. Woodhouse: Yes. , Mr. Archer: As you have said, there is— separating out DOT from the site plan — I will tell you, on behalf of CVS, there is more than enough time to review whatever issues still need to be reviewed -. if there are,any with DOT— between the time that we reach the point where we've satisfied all the conditions that this Board is proposing. So, there is plenty of time to review that. And we'll work with the community. There's no reason not to. We'll go hand in hand with them. Ms. Woodhouse: You will have an opportunity to hear the whole resolution but let me just jump to one part and assure you that what we're voting on tonight is a conditional approval that will require that there be a satisfactory approval from the Department of Transportation for everything that is proposed. That will be something that will happen in the future - it doesn't have to be decided upon tonight-that is built in that that ) agreement with the Department of Transportation occur. So, whatever approvals are / being discussed —or conditional approvals—this is not a final approval. There are conditions to the approval and you will hear them as we read the resolution. And there is opportunity for.'th7,�public to talk with the Department of Transportation and CVS about these conce/ns about traffic safety that you have raised tonight. At this moment, I'm going to ask that we entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Edwards: So move. Mr. Cremers: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded: All those in favor? Ayes- Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards,Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion is carried. The hearing is officially closed. I'm going to ask that Mr. Caggiano.read the resolution that we're voting on. Mr. Caggiano: WHEREAS, the applicant, Laker Development Group,LLC, proposes'a site plan for the alteration of an existing 14,467 sq. ft. building to retail pharmacy space on a 1.78 acre parcel in the B and R-40 Zones located on the south side of NYS Road 25, between 59 Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane, in Mattituck, original SCTM #s1000-143-2-1, 2, 4, - 27.1, & 28 and new merged SCTM#s1000-143-2-2, 4, 27.1, 28.1 & 30.1.; and WHEREAS, North Fork Bowl, Inc. is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000- 143-2-2; Robert Chipetta is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000-143-2-4; Mattituck Realty Association is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000-143-2- 27.1; North Fork Bowl, Inc. is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000-143-2- .28.1; North Fork Properties, LLC is the owner of the property known as SCTM#1000- 143-2-30.1 and all,the properties listed above are located on the s/s/o NYS Road 25 between Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane, in Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2004,.a formal site plan application was submitted for approval; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2004, the Mattituck Fire District found adequate fire protection. for this site plan and the Planning Board has accepted this recommendation; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2004, the Southold Town Trustees reviewed the application and determined.the alterations to the existing retail building to be out of.Wetland Jurisdiction under Chapter 97 of the Town Code; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2004, the Suffolk County department of Health Services received an application and issued a Reference N:,jmber C10-04-0004; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2004, the Southold Town PItining Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR)/Part 617.6, performed a review of this unlisted action, and as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and granted a Negative Declaration on June 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2004, the New York State Department of Transportation issued the Case Number 04-110P for review of a pending work permit application; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2004, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the architectural drawings and associated site plan materials in accordance with its recommendations of April 15, 2004 and April 29, 2004 and determined they were satisfactory; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed and approved the proposed drainage and the Planning Board has accepted his recommendation; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004, the Southold Town Planning Board held the public hearing for CVS Pharmacy open; and, WHEREAS, on August 9, 2004, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed and certified the site plan; and 60 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, the following seven items are incorporated and included in the site plan: 1. Improvements shown on the off-site roadway improvements plan prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates, PC, dated June 18, 2004, are included in the site development work. 2. The construction of the exterior of the building follow the drawing prepared by MMA John S. Montalto, dated March 30, 2004 and last revised May 3, 2004. 3. The applicant and agent agree to restrict commercial traffic from using or accessing Marlene Lane and Sigsbee Road south of the CVS property site. 4. That a.new stockade fence be installed on the south side,of,the property.line starting at the w/s/o Sigsbee Road and ending at the a/s/o Marlene Lane. The posts shall face the north. 5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the light source is not visible,from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in-su�l� a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. The lighting must meet the Town Code requirements. 6. All signs shall meet Southold Town Zoning Codes and shall be subject to approval of Southold Town Building Inspector. 7. All items listed in the letter, dated July 19, 2004, from Dunn Engineering shown on the VHB Engineering &Survey, P.C., certified by Michael W. Junghans,the Site Plan sheet C-2 page 2 of 10.dated 1/19/04 and last revised 8/5/04 and sheet C-6 page 6 of 10 dated 1/19/04 and last revised 8/5/04; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan 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 site plans prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., certified by Michael W. Junghans, dated January 19, 2004 and last revised August 5, 2004, subject to fulfillment of the following requirements: 1.. Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 2. Approval from the New York State Department of Transportation for all work improvements proposed. 3. As indicated on the Notice of Disapproval, dated March 11, 2004, that the original SCTM#s1000-143-2-1, 2, 4, 27.1, & 28 and new merged 61 SCTM#s1000-143-2-2, 4, 27.1, 28.1 & 30.1 lots be merged by deed prior to issuance of a.building permit. These requirements must be met within six (6) months of the resolution and if CVS Pharmacy fails to adhere to these requirements within the prescribed time periods, this approval shall become null and void. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes- Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse:.Opposed? The motion is carried. Unidentified Person in Audience:.' udience: According to what,you're reading now, you're talking about a stockade fence. We haven't been notified about that. There are a lot of things that we haven't even been able to discuss. I don't know how you can have a meeting like that there ...(inaudible). You had already prepared an approval. Unidentified Person in Audience: You prepared this thing and it was a done deal. Unidentified Person in Audience: It was a done deal. �., Unidentified Person in Audience: It was a done deal. ...(inaudible) down river. You're listening to the residents here. ...(inaudible) Listen to our worries. Did you just say that the trucks are going down Wickham? Do you know that across Wickham every one of our high school children every day cross Wickham to go to Love Lane? Do you know what danger that puts them in? It's your responsibility for those children — each and every one of you because you didn't take it into effect. All you're saying —we're just saying the same thing over again. Think of what this community said to you. Ms. Woodhouse: If you need to address the.Board, I remind you.that this hearing is over but— Unidentified Person in Audience: You don't listen. Unidentified .Person in Audience: You haven't.listened to us all night. Just blowing hot air. When you get up at the mic., you're talking at you like this and getting faces. That's no way. You should see that. You should disapprove of that. This is no way to hold a meeting. We tell you about the safety of our children and what do you do, it doesn't matter. You already had a prepared thing. It's a whole farce. Unidentified Person in Audience: Point of clarification, Madame Chairman. The resolution, the letter from the State indicates that the Town of Southold must make recommendations regarding the entrance into the building along with the Chamber of Commerce. Has that been done? 62 g/ql oj�- 21�3 Simultaneous Inaudible Answers: ...... Unidentified Person in Audience: Second thing, in the letter the gentleman indicated from Dunn Engineering that these are minor items. The factor of a parkland versus a beautification area is not a minor item, Parkland cannot be changed; beautification areas can be changed. And I would like that in the record. Joe Singleton. Bruno Semon: Sir, both of those properties that you are referring to are State owned property actually. It's not Town owned; it's,actually given to the Town. It's New York State owned so you need to address that with —the New York State DOT owns that property. Chairperson Woodhouse: Silver Nail Vineyards - This proposed site plan is for a new winery building of 5,477 sq. ft. on a 21.5019 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located on the n\s\o New'York State Route 25 approximately 3,612' a\o Peconic Lane, in Southold. SCTM#(s)1000-75-2-15.1 & 15.2 Mr. Cremers: I'll make the following motion: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby holds the public hearing for Silver Nail Vineyards open. f Mr. Edwards: Sec end the motion._ Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. ********** Chairperson Woodhouse: Perino, Joseph- This proposed major subdivision is for 7 lots on 20.8211 acres. The property is located on the south side of Main Road, 150' west of Sigsbee Road, in Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9. Mr. Edwards: WHEREAS, the above application is a major subdivision without an executed conservation component; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a waiver from Local Law Number 3;.and WHEREAS, the request was denied.by the Town Board; be it therefore 63 g`910+ � f RESOLVED that Local Law Number 3 was adopted at the regular meeting of the Southold Town Board on August 13, 2002 entitled "Local Law in relation to a Temporary Moratorium on Processing, Review of, and making decisions on applications for Major Subdivisions, Minor Subdivisions and Special Use Permits containing Dwelling Units in..the Town of Southold" and therefore no comment can be accepted or action can be made on this application. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET- OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determinations: j Chairperson Woodhouse: Lizewski, Judie - This proposed lot line change is to transfer 3,452.17 sq. ft. from Parcel 2, which is-improved with.a mixed-use office complex, to Parcel 1 which is improved with a single-family res0ence. The property is located on the northeast corner of Depot Lane and Rt. 25 in f utchogue in the RO Zoning District. SCTM#s1000-102-2-11 & 12.1 Would you offer the resolution, please? Mr. Cremers: I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, this lot line amendment proposes to transfer 3,452.17 sq. ft. from Parcel 2, which is improved with a mixed-use office complex, to Parcel 1 which is improved with a single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned RO and requires a minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, prior to the transfer,Parcel 1 equals 16,772.11 sq. ft. and, following the transfer, Parcel 1 would equal 20,224.28 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, the action would increase the area of Parcel 1 and make the nonconforming parcel more conforming to the RO Zoning District; therefore, 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. 64 The Planning Board establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency, makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that both subject parcels are in the applicant's ownership and the Southold Town Planning Board hereby waives the public hearing upon this application. Mr. Edwards: Second the 'motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? 7 . Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Cremers: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant final approval upon the map, dated June 1, 2004, subject to the following recommendation: 1. The rear property line of.Parcel 1 bisects a frame_ shed; please re-locate the structure to avoid any future encroachment issues. Mr. Edwards: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded..All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Setting of Final Hearings: Chairperson Woodhouse: Zoumas Contracting Corp. at Bawiew - This proposal is to subdivide a 48.43 acre parcel into 7 lots where Lot 1 equals 91,787 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 86,235 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 82,606 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 82,635 sq. ft., Lot 5 equals 83,771 sq. ft., Lot 6 equals 31,500 sq. ft. and Lot 7 is equal to 37.70 acres which. are 65 proposed to be sold to the Town of Southold for open space purposes. SCTM#1000- 79-4-17.17 Mr. Edwards: I'll entertain the following motion: WHEREAS, this proposal is to subdivide a 48.43 acre parcel into 7 lots; where Lot 1 equals 91,787 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 86,235 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 82,606 sq. ft., Lot 4 ,equals 82,635 sq. ft., Lot 5 equals 83,771 sq. ft., Lot 6 equals 31,500 sq. ft. and Lot 7 is equal to 37.70 acres which are proposed to be sold to the Town of Southold for open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold is in contract to acquire the fee title of Lot 7 equal to 37.70 acres for open space purposes; therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, September 13, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. for a final public hearing on the maps dated as revised, April 26, 2004. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? Mr. Sidor Mr. Sidor: I wanted to wait. Ms. Woodhouse: Excuse me? Mr. Sidor: I wanted to wait. Ms. Woodhouse: O.K. The motion carries by a vote of 4 to 1. Sketch Determinations: Chairperson Woodhouse: Elysian Field/Merlot - This proposed major subdivision is for 5-lots on 37.85 acres where Lot 1 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 2 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 3 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 4 equals 1.83 acres and Lot 5 equals 28.40 upon which a Conservation Easement was granted to the Peconic Land Trust and includes a 2.09 acre building envelope. The property is located. n/o Main Road in Southold, SCTM#s1000-75-2-2.1 & 2.2 WHEREAS, this proposed major subdivision is for 5 lots on 37.85 acres; where Lot 1 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 2 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 3 equals 1.83 acres, Lot 4 equals 1.83 acres and Lot 5 equals 28.40 upon which a Conservation Easement was granted to the Peconic Land Trust and includes a 2.09 acre building envelope; and 66 WHEREAS, on July 13, 2004, the Southold Town Board adopted Resolution No. 563 of 2004 approving a waiver from Local Law No. 3 of 2002, Local Law,No. 3 of 2003 and Local Law No.13 of.2003 for the proposed action; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board start the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? . Ayes. Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse:,Opposed? The motion carries.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional sketch plan approval on the plat, last revised July 23, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. No application fee has been submitted. Please submit the application fee in' the amount of$4,785.00. / 2. . The submission of a jurisdictional determination from the New York State J Depar[ment of Conservation and the Town of Southold Board of Trustees for the vetland area. 3. The submission of a proposed ownership of the right-of-way and a road and maintenance agreement between the future property owners for the common driveway. 4. The submission of a road and drainage plan for the common driveway. 5. The submission of a bond estimate for the improvements of the common driveway. 6. The submission of a determination from the New York State_Department of Transportation regarding the location of the proposed curb cut. 7. The submittal of a draft covenant and restriction prohibiting direct access to and�from Lot 5 to State Road 25. Access is only to be achieved to Lot 5 via the 50.16 foot right-of-way. Sketch plan approval is conditional upon the submission of the preliminary plat within six months-of the date of sketch plan approval unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Board. 67 The Planning Board has reviewed the property and has decided that it is inadequate for a reservation of land for park and playground use. Therefore, a cash payment in lieu of land reservation will be required. The amount to be deposited with the Town Board shall be $20,000. ($5,000. per vacant lot in the subdivision). Payment is required prior to the final endorsement of the plat. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Chairperson Woodhouse: Oregon LLC/Morrell LLC - This proposal is,to subdivide a 52.91 acre area comprised on SCTM#1000-83-2-11.5 and SCTM# 1000-83-2-12 into 7 lots where Lot 1 equals 80,143 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 84,221 sq. ft., Lot 3 equals 80,195 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 1,269,413 sq. ft. which includes 1,229,393 sq. ft. proposed for Development Rights Sale to the County of Suffolk and a 40,020 sq. ft. building envelope, Lot 5 equals 80,112 sq. ft., Lot 6 equals 80,69� sq. ft. and Lot 7 equals 530,275 sq. ft. and is proposed for a Development Rir&cs Sale to the County of Suffolk. The property is located n/o Oregon Rd., at the terminus of Cox's La. in Cutchogue. SCTM#s1000-83-2-11.5 & 1000-83-2-12 WHEREAS, the proposed action will subdivide a 52.91 acre area comprised on SCTM#1000-83-2-11.5 and SCTM# 1000-83-2-12 into 7 lots where Lot 1 equals 80,143 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 84,221 sq. ft., Lot.3 equals 80,195 sq. ft., Lot 4 equals 1,269,413 sq. ft. which includes 1,229,393 sq. ft. proposed for Development Rights Sale to the County of Suffolk and a-40,020 sq. ft. building envelope, Lot 5 equals 80,112 sq. %, Lot 6 equals 80,698 sq. ft. and Lot 7 equals 530,275 sq. ft. and is proposed for a Development Rights Sale to the County of Suffolk; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a contract, dated February 9, 2004, indicating that the Development Rights upon 40±.acres of cropland will be sold to the County of Suffolk.; and M;z, WHEREAS, the area proposed for Development Rights Sale is equal to 76 percent of the buildable parcel area and exceeds the 75 percent requirement pursuant to Local Law No 3 of 2002 et. al.; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board start the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? 68 Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional sketch plan approval on the plat, dated & last revised on June 30, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Please show building envelopes upon the plat for all proposed lots. 2. Oregon Road is a recognized scenic area important to the community. The Planning Board has requested vegetative buffers upon the plat to mitigate development impacts to the view shed. Please show vegetative buffers upon the plat and list all,proposed species and specifications: 3. The submission of a New York State Department of Environmental Protection SPEDS General Permit for the action or a covenant and restriction mandating the securing of the permit prior to any construction activity. 4. The submissi0 of proposed ownership and a Road and Maintenance Agreement f of the right-of-way. Sketch plan approval is conditional,upon the submission of final maps within six months of the date of sketch plan approval unless an extension of time is requested by th applicant and granted by the Planning Board. The final maps, eight (8) paper prints and five (5) mylars, must contain a current stamp of Health Department approva! and must be submitted before a final public hearing will be set. The Planning Board has reviewed the property and has decided that it is inadequate for a reservation of land for park and playground use. Therefore, a cash payment in lieu of land reservation will be required. The amount to be deposited with the Town Board shall be $30,000 ($5,000 per vacant lot in the subdivision). The plate has been referred to the Town Engineer, Suffolk County Planning Commission and the Cutchogue Fire District for review and comment. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. 69 Chairperson Woodhouse: loannou, Constantine - This proposed minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 6.81 acres where Lot 1 equals 92,332 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 114,288 sq. ft., and Lot 3 equals 80,000 sq. ft. in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located n/o State Road 25, 4,848 feet e/o Kayleigh's Court, in East Marion. SCTM#1000-23-1-14.7 Would you please read the next one? Mr. Sidor: WHEREAS, this proposed minor subdivision is for 3 lots on 6.81 acres where Lot 1 equals 92,332 sq. ft., Lot 2,equals 114,288 sq. ft., and Lot 3 equals 80,000 sq. ft. in the R-80 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2004, the Southold Town Board adopted Resolution No. 171 of 2004 approving a conditional waiver from Local Law No. 3 of 2002, Local Law No. 3 of 2003 and Local Law No.13 of 2003 for the proposed action; therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.7, established itself as lead agency for the unlisted action and, as lead agency, grants a l Negative-Declaration for the proposed action. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Sidor: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grant conditional sketch plan approval on the plat, dated & last revised on September 7, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The submission of a Tidal Wetland Permit from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and a determination from the Southold Town Trustees for the action. 2. The submission of.a New York State Department of Transportation Curb-cut/ Highway Work Permit for the proposed right-of-way. 3. The submission of a New York State Department of Environmental Protection SPEDS. permit for the action or a covenant and restriction mandating the securing of the permit prior to any construction activity. 70 4. The submission of a revised map to include the following required information: building envelopes, test hole data, name of person who flagged the wetlands along with the date, names of adjacent property owners, proposed water supply and sewage treatment, property lines within 200', fire wells and hydrants on site or within 200'. Mr. Cremers: Second the motion. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in,favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. SITE PLANS Final Extensions: Chairperson Woodhouse: Sang Lee Farm - This amended site plan is for the construction of a 2,600 sq. ft. enclosed farmstand on a 15.306 acre parcel in the A-C Zone located at 25180 CR 48, approximately 781' east of Bridge Lane on the south / side of C.R. 48, in Cutchogue. SCTM#(s)1000-84-5-1.2 & 1.3 Mr. Cremers:I'll offer the following: WHEREAS, the proposed site plan, to be known as Site Plan for Sang Lee Farms, is for a new 2,600 sq. ft. farm stand on 15.306 acres; and WHEREAS, Fred and Karen Lee are the owners of the property known and designated as Sang Lee Farms, 25180 CR 48, Cutchogue, SCTM#1000-84-5-1.2 & 1.3; and WHEREAS, a formal application for approval of this site`plan was submitted on December 27, 2002; and WHEREAS, the applicant hereby agrees and understands that if the site plan which receives stamped Health Department approval differs in anyway from the proposed conditional site plan on which the Planning Board held a public hearing and voted on, then the Planning Board has the right and option, if the change is material to any of the issues properly before the Planning Board, to hold another public hearing on this "revised" site plan application and rescind or amend its conditional 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, on August 11, 2003, the.,Southold Town Planning Board closed the final . public hearing and granted conditional final approval; and 71 /Wo WHEREAS, on August 12, 2003, the Southold Town Planning Board Chairman endorsed the resolution; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2004, the applicant sought to extend the August 12, 2003 conditional final approval; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a six month extension from the date of this resolution on the conditional final approval of the site plan prepared by Samuels and Steelman, dated November 18, 2002 and last revised June 12, 2003, subject to fulfillment of the following condition: 1. Approval,by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Mr. Cag igiano: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those.in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. EdJ�iards, Mr. Sidor J Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Chairperson Woodhouse: I'll entertain a motion for the Board to approve the minutes of June 14, 2004 and July 12, 2004. Mr. Cremers: So move. Mr. Edwards: Second. Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano,.Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to.adjourn the.meeting. Mr. Cremers: So move. Mr. Sidor: Second. 72 9/g/04 Chairperson Woodhouse: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Ms. Woodhouse, Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Sidor Chairperson Woodhouse: Opposed? The motion carries. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol Kalin Secretary erilyn B. oodhouse, Chairperson 73 �ft/off