Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-04/17/1989 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road u P.O. Box 1179 � Southold, New York 11971 �i " TELEPHONE (516) 7 65-19 38 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 17 , 1989 Present were: Bennett. Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Member William Mullen Member Richard Ward Member G. Richie Latham Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro Planner Trainee Robert G. Kassner Jane Rousseau, Temporary Secretary Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is the public hearing on the final maps dated November 15, 1988 of Rita Cushman. This is a lot line change on 10. 60 acres located at Fishers Island. SCTM #2000-8-1-6. 3 and 6. 4. We have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times and also the Traveler Watchman. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing. I ' ll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any questions from the board? Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Scopaz? None. No further questions, I will declare this hearing closed. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose the following motion: Whereas, a formal application for approval of a lot line change entitled Rita Cushman located at Fishers Island was submitted to the Planning Board on December 7, 1988 and whereas a public hearing was held on said lot line change at Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York, on Monday, April 17 , 1989 at 7: 30 p.m. , and Whereas, a negative declaration was declared on March 6, 1989 and Whereas, covenants and restrictions have been filed as noted on the said map and Whereas, the requirements of the subdivision regulations with the Town of Southold have been met by said subdivision plat and application, I offer a motion to approve the application of Rita Cushman and the Chairman to endorse the maps. Planning Board Page 2 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded, any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps) Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Walsh Park - Board to keep the public hearing open from October 14, 1988 pending receipt of Suffolk County Planning Commission comments. This affordable housing project is located on Fishers Island. SCTM #1000-6-2-3 . 1. We will leave this hearing open. We did receive the Suffolk County Planning Commission' s comments, however, they must be reviewed. This will be on the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have North Road Associates - Board to keep the public hearing open from February 6, 1989 pending receipt of Suffolk County Planning Commission comments. This minor subdivision is on 16. 886 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-18-4-1. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Planning Board Page 3 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, May 1, 1989 at 7 : 30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of June 6, 1988 and November 14, 1988. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed minutes) . SUBDIVISIONS: Final: Mr. Orlowski: Eli 'ah' s Lane - Town Owned Proper - Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated April 7, 1989. Board to close the public hearing that was left open from the regular meeting of February 27 , 1989 pending receipt of the Planning Commission comments. This minor subdivision is on 2. 962 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-108-4-7 .2. This was denied by the Suffolk County Planning Commission because the density was too great. The lots should have been a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. in accordance with the Health Services requirements. The town has applied for a Health Department variance. This is an affordable housing project in the town. First, I' ll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Planning Board Page 4 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: As far as the Planning Commission' s comments and recommendations. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I think that we should wait for the Health Services response. If they come back and approve the 30,000 sq. ft. lots, which were proposed, then we would be in a position to override their response. Whereas, if they don' t, then the Suffolk Planning Commission response of 40,000 sq. ft. would stand. In other words, we may have to override again if in fact the Health Services comes through with the 30,000 sq. ft. . So we may as well just wait until we get their response and go from there. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , we' ll hold it over for review. Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Wild Oats - Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps dated February 9, 1989 . This major subdivision is on 14.724 acres located at Peconic. SCTM #1000-86-4-6. Everything is in order for preliminary approval. The public hearing was held on April 3, 1989. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: 7 :45 p.m. - Da sman Morris - Public hearing on the final maps dated March 13, 1989. This lot line change is located on Linnett Street at Greenport . SCTM #1000-48-3-6 & 7. Publication was in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and also the Suffolk Times. Everything is in order for a public hearing. I' ll ask if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any Planning Board Page 5 April 17 , 1989 endorsements on this lot line change? Any question from the board? Hearing none, I' ll declare this hearing closed. Mr. Orlowski: Since this is a lot line change does the board have any pleasure tonight to take action on this? Mr. Latham: I move we approve and endorse the lot line change. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Just for the record it should be noted that ALL SUBDIVISIONS AND LOT LINE CHANGES MUST BE FILED AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED. We have sent letters to all the surveyors notifying them of this change. *************** SKETCHES: Mr. Orlowski - Allen Cardinale - Board to review the sketch map dated February 22, 1989. This major subdivision is on 15 . 9012 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM # 1000-122-2-1.4. This sketch was reviewed at the work session and a letter was sent asking for revisions. We noted that the cul-de-sac should be located between lots two and three. We will do a sketch subject to the final maps with the cul-de-sac between two and three and a flag lot for access to lot one. I don't know if you want to do it that way or wait for the final maps. We also need the road profiles. I think we should wait for the maps. It' s O.K. with the board. SE RA DETERMINATIONS: Mr. Orlowski: John Simicich - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 7. 4834 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-121-1-p/o 1. Everything is in order for a negative declaration. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Planning Board Page 6 April 17 , 1989 Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. *************** REPORTS AND BONDS: Mr. Orlowski: Robert & Sidney Olmsted - Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated March 3, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 3 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-1114-7-14. What is the pleasure of the board? I will refrain from comment. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, we went for a field inspection on this and it is our opinion that the three lots that are being created would be best serviced by a common driveway and a cul-de-sac to the North side of the property, which is presently shown as a right-of-way and the elimination of the separate driveways onto Westphalia Avenue. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: On the Planning Commission' s report. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Ward: The County comments, one, two, and three. One was creation of the substandard lots. We should submit to them the variance which was granted for the lots. Item two, creation of a parcel which does not have frontage on an existing or proposed public road. I think the amended maps we now have show all three lots with access off a common road should adequately address item two. Item three - No information provided adequate restrictions would be placed upon the property to protect Mattituck Creek, it seems to me our present code with a seventy five foot set-back requirement for any future additions or development of the property would adequately address this particular parcel. I think if we address it that way as comments back to the county, that might take care of it. Ms. Scopaz: I think that the county comments were predicated on a piece of property that was not developed, but we are dealing with something that was already developed. There are three existing homes on there and since the property has been developed we are dealing with an existing situation. The Planning Board Page 7 April 17 , 1989 comments are related to a vacant parcel so I think Mr. Ward' s comments are viable. Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to put that in the motion? Mr. Ward: I think we should just address that back to them because we' re really not looking to override at this point. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. . We don' t need a motion. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Beachwood Acres- Board to review the Bond Estimate and the Sidney Bowne Report dated March 30 , 1989. This minor subdivision is on 7.1628 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-68-4-2, 3 . On Sidney Bowne' s Report the access road is to be built to the Town' s alternate specifications and also a cul-de-sac requires a 50 ft. minimum radius. They prepared a Bond Estimate incorporating the above considerations. The bond estimate is for $53 ,823 and we' ll add in one firewell since we have no comment back from the fire district yet. The firewells are $10,000 dollars, which should come to $63 ,825 and a 5% inspection fee so it will be in the neighborhood of somewhere around $66,000 or $67,000 dollars. What is the pleasure of the board. Mr. Mullen: I move for acceptance with those changes. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded, Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have DBM Affordable Housing Proposal - Board to review the engineers report dated March 28, 1989. Board to set Monday, May 1, 1989 at 7 :30 p.m. for a public hearing on the preliminary maps dated March 13, 1989. This major subdivision is on 37 .762 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-55-6-15.1. We discussed the report at the work session and a letter has been sent out. I' ll entertain a motion to accept this report. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Planning Board Page 8 April 17 , 1989 Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. . Mr. Orlowski: Also, we can set this date for a public hearing on the preliminary maps. This will be held if the Town Board votes on a Change of Zone to Affordable Housing Development after the Town Boards next meeting. Mr. Edwards: What date are you looking at? Mr. Orlowski: May 1, 1989. Mr. Edwards: We set the hearing for May 1, 1989 at 7 : 30 p.m. . Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Andreas Markakis - Board to review this site plan for a food establishment located on Boisseau Avenue at Southold. SCTM 1000-62-1-16. Does the board have any comments? Mr. Ward: Based on our field inspection, the best we can see as far as on-site parking, of legal parking spaces is two. I think the applicant would be best to address that particular situation as to how he wants to proceed. We see no way of putting five spaces on that site. Mr. Mullen: I must concur with Mr. Ward' s comments. This is a rather difficult area, I noticed that the parking spaces must be at a 45 degree angle too. Mr. Orlowski: The applicant is here. Do you understand that? Mr. Markakis: Mr. Chairman, almost five years ago five parking spots were approved for this property. In the course of this time, these five parking spots have been used without inconvenience and you can check the record there was not one accident in the process. How the board finds two, I do not understand. Planning Board Page 9 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: We drove over to the site and those two spaces are not that accessible either. We can see maybe two spaces on the property. Mr. Markakis: No Mr. Chairman, five spaces have been approved almost five years ago. They have been used, people have parked there and drove about and came out from the other side so there is no difficulty what so ever experienced by anyone. Young or old or handicapped. This is a fact. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward? Mr. Markakis: Excuse me, when they put all those lines of cesspools required by the Health Department the bulldozer excavated and caused some of the sand to come on top of the bluestone which is about ten to twelve inches deep. This presently inconveniences in manuvering a car. This will be eliminated because Corizzini will do the paving of the whole area so we will have a smooth manuvering area. As far as parking accomodation, it' s there, it has not been altered. There is no reason why the parking spaces should shrink in the course of five years. Mr. Ward: To make comment to this alleged five parking spaces, and it physically cannot be done according to any traffic standards at all, can you put five parking spaces on that particular parcel? Mr. Markakis: Oh yes. Mr. Ward: I beg to disagree with you. Mr. Markakis: I would like to see the records, the approval of those five parking spots five years ago. If that record exists and if there is any ordinance by which that has been altered, or eliminated, I don' t know of such an ordinance. Mr. Mullen: I believe the utilization of the property was quite different from what you are anticipating doing right now. I believe perhaps there is complete discord between your thinking and our thinking. Believe me, we did spend some time there the other day. Perhaps we should consider sending a professional engineer out to check it out and give us an indepth report on the situation. I do not possibly see how you can get five places there, but, I'm not an engineer or a surveyor so perhaps we ought to go one step further and get some professional input on it. Mr. Markakis: Would you pleasure me with a response to my question? What happened to those five parking spots five years ago? Mr. Mullen: I have no idea. Planning Board Page 10 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Markakis: Well, somebody must have an idea, I came before the board. I came before the Town Board and I came before the Building Department, I did everything they asked me to. Mr. Mullen: Sir, I believe we are going to get some professional input, we are layman here such as you are. You are not an engineer either and I believe you should give us an opportunity to go one step further and get some professional opinion on the situation. Mr. Markakis: I still did not get an answer to my question. Where is the approval of the five parking spots I had from those five years? They were used and you can confirm that throught with the experts. There was no inconvenience, I don' t know of any accidents or any report of complaints of people parking there. As far as this fine argument which is presented, I would like to comment, a parking spot is a parking spot for one car no matter what that car is there for. Whether it' s a food establishment or a printing shop or a church or the white house. One parking spot accomodates one car so don't deviate from that Mr. Mullen. Mr. Mullen: There is a situation you should consider. You must also consider the traffic flow. I will not comment any further, I have made my recommendation . Mr. Markakis: You have touched a very, very tender pore. Are you concerned with public safety? Are you concerned with human life? Are you, I'm asking you Mr. Mullen? Are you concerned with that? Mr. Mullen: Sir, I 'm more concerned than you ever realized about traffic safety and the human life. I just lost a future son- in-law in a traffic accident. Mr. Markakis: Good. Mr. Mullen: Good? Thank you very much. Mr. Markakis: Not good that you lost somebody but the fact that you have knowledge of it. I stood before this Town Board years ago. Who authorized this sidewalk on the side ❑f Wayside Market? Mrs. Cochran is here and will testify that her mother built that sidewalk. (Inaudible) The legality exists and I demand that it be removed, that same legality three years ago and I 'm still waiting. Injustice and discrimination I have found in here, but there is a court of law where I' ll take my case and find justice and this is exactly what I am going to do. Put your decision in writing so I can proceed. Thank you very much. Mrs. Cochran: I would like to stress that I am here as Jean Cochran, private citizen on behalf of the neigborhood. We have many concerns in relation to the traffic flow and also to the Planning Board Page 11 April 17 , 1989 parking situation which will be created. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the previous speaker in relation to people parking within the fenced in area on the site itself. In the time that he has been there conducting business as a printing shop, and now the building has been empty for quite some time. Not only have I not seen a car parked inside the fence but I have not seen the owner parked inside the fence myself. We are very concerned about on street parking, many, many times even when it was used as a VFW Hall, we had no concerns. When you build or you live next to the hamlet, you know that businesses are going to flurrish around. You know there is going to be an increase in traffic, but this is really a unique situation because there just is not parking within that fenced area that people have used. I have never seen a car within that area. In addition, there has been another problem created with Thompsons driveway now coming out on Boisseau Avenue. It seems for some reason, and I have discussed this with Mr. Thompson, but we can't figure out why, but people coming down from the North on Boisseau Avenue think that my driveway is Mr. Thompson' s store so I have people starting to pull into the driveway all the time, they realize their error, (Maybe my driveway is too wide and they think it looks like the entrance) then they whip back out into the proper lane of traffic. I have seen it many, many, times and I don' t know if there is a possibility of some kind of marker that could be placed on the Thompson property that would indicate that that is his driveway. Adjoining the Thompson driveway is the driveway for our barn. Of course, we use it all the time. Pep is in and out, the boys with their trucks, and so on and so forth, so it is a driveway that is used all the time. Of course, the barn sits and then my house and it' s just, we tried again this past year to get a traffic light put up there and the State feels not only it doesn't warrant a traffic light but they also feel it would cause more accidents if a traffic light is placed there. Now in the summer time when people are trying to get out into the traffic flow on the Main Road, they back up from the corner, past my house. In addition, the highway at the mouth of Boisseau Avenue is reasonably wide, with the little incut by by Thompsons, once you get to about the middle of my yard, the road begins to narrow. We saw it many times when the VFW had functions there and cars would park on both sides of the road, it reduced your traffic to one lane. In addition, we have the problem of the delivery trucks. It was interesting today as I looked out the window and there was a great big trailer truck making deliveries and he is parked right in the middle of the highway cocked at an angle so again it was pushed down to one lane of traffic and everyone had to be very cautious going through. No, there are not many accidents recorded there because I think all of us realize that it is a dangerous area so I think that most people are more than cautious in there parking, their pulling out, and so forth. The neighbors have spoken to me and we' re not concerned, not in my backyard, but we do feel very strongly that this type of a business, if it does not have on site parking is only going to add to the many problems in the neighborhood so on their behalf, Planning Board Page 12 April 17 , 1989 I am sharing this information with the board. Incidentally, my mother did not put the sidewalk there. The corner lot, and also the Cochran' s many, many, years ago going back into the 1800' s, they did have a corner store where Wayside is and in addition a little house directly across the street from me, which is the Stevens house, there was also a store downstairs in that basement at one point. Cochran' s have been in business on that corner many, many, years ago, but my mother did not put the sidewalk in. Thank you. Mr. Markakis: Would you allow me Mr. Chairman, I'm not concerned who put the sidewalk from the corner of the building to the Stop sign but all I know is I got a letter to my inquire from the Highway Department. One day Mrs. Cochran came to the store to make photo copies and I showed her the letters stating there was never a sidewalk and she told me and I didn' t hear this from anybody else, "who the hell says that"? My mother built that sidewalk, the whole property there was our families. I didn' t know that, I 'm only here twenty-two years and I don' t know what happened before. Now, what you heard about the traffic conditions is something I had brought up to the board, the entire Town Board, I never got the answer to my question. All those traffic conditions were never answered. I don' t know why. I don't know why the Highway Department with the taxpayers money with the truck with the tar on-board, with the driver with the taxpayers money, with the broom and the rake on board I don' t know why that thing is ( inaudible) on the side of the Wayside Market. Nine-ten in the morning I came and I said to Mr. Murphy "get in your car and go see" , Oh, I can' t do that, I do not know what they can do or they cannot. This is taxpayers money, I think you go very far with conditions. Now all of this has a relationship, they all seem to relate, I'm not involved in politics, I 'm certainly getting into the touch stage picture and there will be some recognitions. Mr. Orlowski: Well, this board is not involved in politics either. Mr. Markakis: Please, consider my position there, I 'm trying to develop the store in accordance with the law. What the law gives me I 'm trying to do. Do not attempt to take it from me, you have no right to do so. I have to put something there to support my family, I'm paying taxes for twenty-two years and I have rights which I will pursue. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Alright, I think you have the right to a restaurant there, you have to provide off-street parking, you cannot use the parking that is on the street. The way your site-plan shows now with the twenty-five seats and the way the code reads, you have to have eight or nine parking spots on site. Mr. Markakis: Excuse me those twenty- five seats were allowed at the time that Southold Town ---------- Planning Board Page 13 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: That has nothing to do with the site plan. Mr. Markakis: Excuse me, no, but the seats were allowed at the time the Southold Town Health Department ruled on this. The existing law at the time called for twenty-five seats. Today it is fifteen. I do not argue that but there are twenty five seats there, I cannot use the twenty- five seats because they go to the previous law. The current law says three seats to a parking spot, a total of fifteen, that is all I am asking. Not one more. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I still don' t see where you' re going to provide enough parking for the twenty- five seats, you' re not allowed a fast food restaurant, but you are allowed a restaurant. I think the question from this board should be to- you right now, would you plan to address your site plan in accordance to the code? Mr. Ward: Let' s take Mr. Mullen' s suggestion and refer to Sidney Bowne from a traffic point of view, an engineering point of view. How many spaces can physically go in accordance with good engineering practice. Then we will get back to the applicant. I think we should have that on the record. Mr. Orlowski: I think we should know if he is willing to cut his seating capacity. Mr. Ward: Well, he is going to have to address that if he cannot get the parking. Mr. Markakis: I cannot ask for twenty-five and I 'm not asking for twenty-five, I'm asking for fifteen. I cannot ask for twenty-five. Mr. Orlowski: We have to find out how to get five spots on this site. Mr. Markakis: Mr. Chairman, the only thing is, we have been there and tied up money. Mr. Orlowski: We' ll do it as fast as we can. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , moving on, board to recommend to the Town Board the following Local Laws: The Local Law in Relation to Zoning, this is a Site Plan Article which we have been working on for a number of years. What is the recommendation to the Town Board on moving that? Mr. Ward: I move that it be adopted. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Mullen: That is the memo of April 14th, from Judy Terry? Planning Board Page 14 April 17 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Mullen: I have a few comments on that if I may. Number one, we mentioned specifically, about ten days for receipt of the application for the Planning Board shall determine whether to accept or not. I recommend fifteen days and note it mentions business days, there is an area in here where it just mentions days and I would like to have that changed to business days. In addition, there is a situation in here in regard to the fire commissioner as to whether a determination for a fire well is needed. I would have it, whether, a more positive situation because we need fire wells throughout this town and the time to get them is when we need them not later after the fact when the area is developed and I would like to have a little more positive area in there if I may. In addition, there is also a situation in regard to the fees, a very important area. They mention specifically, a new site plan shall be one- hundred and fifty per acre or faction thereof. That is fine, plus two and one-half cents per square foot of building area. That is ridiculous. On ten-thousand square feet which will be a million dollar project, you get a big two hundred and fifty dollars. Lets be realistic. I recommended twenty-five cents, which I was laughed at so I will go down to ten cents, which would still only give us a thousand dollars for approximately a million dollar project. I think we have to be a little more realistic in our situation and get a more realistic fee which I have been after for many years but with minimal success. I therefore request you give consideration to the fee situation, and the situation of ten days to fifteen days particularly with the work load that would probably being under pressure. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I amend my resolution to include those comments from Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , I have a motion made and seconded. I will say one thing about the fees, how we keep asking for more money and being told that we keep coming up short in our budget and we can' t get the money. We' ll ask one more time. Mr. Mullen: Could we go for twenty-five cents? That would still only give you twenty-five hundred dollars for ten thousand square feet. Mr. Ward: Well, I think since it' s a comment Bill, we can leave it open and we had thought originally twenty-five cents given the comparison and it' s up to the Town Board to make a final decision. Mr. Orlowski: I believe the Town Board adopted new fees at the last meeting, didn' t they, changing the fee' s in the Master Plan which was ten times greater than that, which sounded O.K. to us, but didn' t draw a lot of enthusiam. O.K. , all those in favor? Planning Board Page 15 April 17 , 1989 Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: We have a Local Law in Relation to Zoning - a Site Plan for Accessory and Permitted Uses. Mr. Ward: So moved for adoption. Mr. Orlowski: Make a recommendation for adoption. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any question on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: We also have a Local Law in Relation to Zoning and we have a question on the Hotel Guest Units, I don' t know if you want to hold it over to the work session or if you want to make some comment now. Mr. Ward: Do you have any comments Bill. Mr. Mullen: That to my mind is an important situation and I would like to go it at a work session, I have a couple of ideas but I don' t want to take up the time right now. Mr. Orlowski: Well that' s one we really haven' t talked about and I 'd like to hold that one over myself. Mr. Orlowski: Being I have nothing further on my agenda, any comments or questions from the board? None. I' ll entertain a motion. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Planning Board Page 16 April 17 , 1989 Being no further business to come before the board, on motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, and carried the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, Jane Rousseau Temporary Secretary Southold Planning Board Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman s HOUR Town Clerk, Towaa....®:f_..SouAhcl ..�..