Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/01/1989 M Town Hall. 53095 Main Road „ P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1 1971 0 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 1, 1989 Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Member G. Richie Latham Member Kenneth Edwards Planner Melissa Spiro Planner Trainee, Robert G. Kassner Temporary Secretary Jane Rousseau Absent were: Members Bill Mullen and Dick Ward Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is: 7 :30 p.m. The DBM Affordable Housing Proposal. This is 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 have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing. I will ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Paul Kraehling: I live at 630 Yennecot Drive. I would like to give the Planning Board members a petition signed by fifty-five residents. I will read what the petition says. "We- the undersigned are concerned about the proposed DBM proposal located between Boisseau Avenue and Yennecot Park. Our main areas of concern are traffic problems and the future development of four bordering properties of Decoty, Meyer, Mooney and O'Malley. We' re also concerned about the proposed density which is four times that recommended by Southold Town in this current two acre zoning. I ' ll give you a Xerox copy, the Town Board has the original. As was brought out at the Town Board meeting there was a traffic study done in November and I honestly feel and I think the people who signed this petition feel that it wasn' t a true study at that time and was going to be investigated into by the developers of this property. Anybody that has lived in this area for any period of time realizes that obviously the heavest traffic is between May and October. Anybody that has driven down Boisseau Avenue and has tried to get out and go across to Founders Landing realizes the traffic problems in that area. Obviously, the main area of PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 MAY 1 , 1989 concern is if you go from two acres down to one-half acre and you take five pieces of property which includes I don' t know how many acres in that area, you could have significant problems there. Longpond Estates, that is in the back only has three houses built which there are only two occupied and there are several more that obviously will give us more traffic problems. With all the development up on County Road 48 now coming through we get a tremendous amount of people cutting through from Greenport, people who want to avoid going through Southold Town and cutting through our area. One of the main areas of the two there was a change and we hadn' t seen that which was submitted March 13th, we saw the one that was dated 1988. Traffic wise if you look at that study and you see the numbers, I honestly can't agree with that. I have lived there for sixteen years and particularly the last three years the traffic has increased dramatically. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Are there any other objections to this subdivision? Jean Tieke: Is it true that this is suppose to be entirely affordable housing? Mr. Orlowski: No. Jean Tieke: Well, that is the way the legal notices read which is very unfortunate. I think we really need a mix all over town. I 'm speaking for the League of Women Voters of Riverhead/Southold. If you look at the notice it says, "approval affordable housing located in the Town of Southold etc." Mr. Orlowski: Well it is in the affordable housing district "AHD" which the Town Board just granted. a change of zone for that property. Jean Tieke: How can they stop them from having only affordable housing? Mr. Orlowski: Because there is a specific formula that they have to go by in the sale of their property and at least fifty percent has to be affordable at least. Jean Tieke: Well that is understandable, I don't think any area should be affordable or unaffordable. We should be able to live where we want to and build where we want to but some of these small lots that are around town might go as affordable. One here, one there, I mean we don' t want to segregate people by money. Mr. Orlowski: The problem is, we don' t have anyone willing to sell lots for twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 MAY 1 , 1989 Jean Tieke: Yes, I know we should have done that a long time ago. Is the designation of affordable owning for six years as the legal notice appears to say? Mr. Orlowski: Well, you' ll have to read the whole thing. Jean Tieke: Yes, I read the whole thing. Can someone live there after six years? Richard Isreal: They can live there for thirty. Jean Tieke: But it doesn't say that in this notice. Mr. Orlowski: As far as stopping any resale, immediately after you move in, the resale is probably triple. Jean Tieke: The wording is so uneven for most of us, at least for me. If it says after six years affordable, you can' t tell if you're going to be there thirty years will it still be affordable? Will it still be taxed more lightly? Mr. Orlowski: Unfortunately, the way it is spelled out and Mr. McMahon is here somewhere, he can explain this whole thing. Jean Tieke: I think it' s very confusing for most of us to figure out what really is going to happen and I'm all for affordable housing but I think everybody should have more choice and not say if you only earn $42,000 dollars a. year that you are affordable now. Are they going to be multiple dwellings? Mr. Orlowski: No, all single. No rentals. This whole AHD district that was proposed in the master plan was talked out quite a bit, even before the master plan. Jean Tieke: I think you have to clarify a lot of things before we go into this. We have to have affordable housing and we have to have it mixed all over town. Mr. Orlowski: All I can tell you is you can pick up a copy of the AHD zoning of what is allowed and what is not allowed. I believe it is self explanatory and Mr. McMahon is always around to explain it. It' s a district that is allowed by the Town Board through a change of zone and it' s put in place to try to provide affordable housing and it' s a minimum of fifty percent where it doesn't put the developer in a spot of doing one hundred percent which we find to be almost impassible. It' s been worked out with as much protection as possible from any resale, being as fair as we possibly can with the owners. Jean Tieke: What the league objects to is the affordable housing district, not to the policy of affordable housing, you have to have it. Mr. Orlowski: Where was the league when it was adopted? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 MAY 1 , 1989 Jean Tieke: Don' t ask me, I don' t know. Mr. Orlowski: Any other objections? Hearing none, are there any endorsements? William Moore: Attorney for the applicant. Let me explain very quickly for Jean' s sake that I think you steered her correctly Mr. Chairman, that the affordable housing district discussed this, the Town has no means by which to preclude a private property once they have bought a piece of property zoned in a particular way, in this case AHD from selling that property but the affordable housing law does try to put a burden, economic burden to keep that from happening and that is done by way of recouping any attempt to get a profit back over a period of six years. After the sixth year a person can sell it and retain whatever profit they might make on it and that would effectively keep it from being resold as affordable housing if you look at it that way. That is the way the ordinance is written and this is not the place to debate that. If the law has to be rewritten, that is the Town Board' s job to rewrite it. We are working on what we have for the time being. As far as the traffic goes, we did go back and meet and talk with ( inaudible) Associates, this goes back to the environmental impact statement that was prepared and the final impact statement was accepted by the town before they changed the zone. The traffic was done by Kashen, they were in contact with Suffolk County public works, there traffic safety or traffic engineering division and the numbers that were used including a multiplier to take into account the seasonal variations including seasonal traffic counts that Suffolk had done and the bottom line is the roads have the capacity. That is part of why we designed the roads the way we do so it can handle the capacity that is generated. Other than that, we ask you to consider the plan as you have it and give us your comments and approval. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , are there any other endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there who is neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to this board? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Mr. Edwards: The Highway Department has a couple of comments. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, I was talking with Mr. Jacobs this afternoon on the Highway specifications and we will have to review them with him. He wanted to make some comments and run them by the applicants so at this time I think we could keep this hearing open until Mr. Jacobs has his comments heard. Jean Tieke: Mr. Orlowski can I ask one question? Who are the D and B in the DBM? Mr. Isreal: It' s just three initials. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 MAY 1 , 1989 Jean Tieke: Initials are people and I know Mandel. Richard Isreal: The first two initials are the middle names of my two first children. One is David and one is Blake. Jean Tieke: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: I' ll entertain a motion to keep this hearing open. This is a preliminary hearing and there will be a final hearing if you have any comments you can address them in writing to the board. We will always be reading our correspondence, I can promise you that. So I' ll entertain that motion to keep the hearing open. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Walsh Park - Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission comments. This is an Affordable Housing Project located on Fishers Island. Mr. Edwards do you have any comments? Mr. Edwards: Yes, I have a few. As you know we have the County report back, we have not had a chance to discuss it at the work session. There is one major problem that has to be dealt with which is the open space area. As you know the town law requires a home owners association at Walsh Park, we would rather not have that and my understanding is that the town lawyer and Walsh Parks lawyers are working on that and that would have to be approved by the Town Board. I think that we should hold our comments on the County report until we have all the information together. Hopefully soon. Mr. Orlowski: The hearing itself is open from October 14, 1988. Do you want to close this hearing now? Mr. Edwards: I would be in favor of that but I do know that there are some people who would like to speak on Walsh Park and I would like to give them the opportunity to do that. Mr. Sam Gordon: I am secretary treasurer of the North Hill Association. With me here tonight are other members of our PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 MAY 1 , 1989 excutive committee. Mr. Jim Reither and Mr. William Hood. We are very pleased to see that you and Mr. Edwards are wearing Fishers Island ties this evening. We regret that our president, Mr. Stanley is not able to be here this evening. As you may remember he had some remarks which he provided at the October 14th hearing on Fishers Island and we would like to continue some of those comments hopefully in a constructive vane. We are here to talk about three things. Outlines, Grading, and Covenants and Restrictions. You should have just received our letter and enclosures. We regret that we couldn't get it to you sooner but we only just recently had a chance to study the subdivision plat and obtain a copy of the Suffolk County letter. We would encourage you to read our letter and consider our suggestions. They are tendered with the intent of improving the Walsh Park subdivision while it is still in its preliminary stage. Our president, Mr. Stanley has talked with the president of Walsh Park, Frank Burr and with the Vice President Mark Andrews, and they have both endorsed our efforts. As you may know the North Hill Association represents about twenty five families including year-round residents whose homes and properties adjoin or overlook the proposed subdivision. Our principle concerns are preservation of the scenicand conservation values of this sensitive part of the west end of Fishers Island and making Walsh Park the best subdivision it can be for the residents of Walsh Park as well as for the inhabitants of Fishers Island. We would like to make it very clear that we do not object to the Walsh Park subdivision and the affordable housing. We do not intend to introduce any delay in the approval process. We are not here to be obstructionists, very much to the contrary, we are here to encourage Walsh Park to be the best that it can be. As you may be aware, and many of you have visited the Walsh Park site and have walked on the site. There is a knoll that stands there which is the most promenant feature of the local topography. It is covered with natural vegetation. It rises to fifty six feet above sea level and is about thirty five feet above most of the surrounding track, which in contrast is very sparce. The knoll creates very much of the environment and the atmosphere of that particular location. Its sides have very steep slopes. We believe that any encroechment could easily destroy the integrity of this property and the atmosphere that it creates. It could lead to serious erosion and we have witnessed within the last several years dirt bikes, four wheel vehicle RV' s on that tract. We have always assumed that the entire knoll would be protected within a conservation easement of the subdivision itself. That the knoll would remain undisturbed in its natural state and that no building lots would fall on it. There would be no individual ownership, that in fact it would exist for casual individual recreational purposes to be enjoyed by all. In inspecting Mr. King' s survey, we note that several lot lines differ markedly from the SWA sketch that we endorsed in October for the Walsh Park subdivision. In particular, we are concerned about lot number six and lot number seven. Lot number six, the lines from the building envelope perch high on the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 MAY 1 , 1989 flank of the knoll and lot number seven the boundary lines cut high across the steep slope of the knoll almost to the summit. (Inaudible) Mr. Reiter shows how it is possible to adjust the lot line on lot number six and for lot seven through twelve to avoid encroaching on this fragile knoll. Essentially to draw those lot lines off the knoll away from the fragile knoll and to preserve the knoll. We think preserving the fragile knoll ungraded and uneroded, its vegetation unspoiled for scenic and conservation purposes will have a benefit to the future residents of Walsh Park as well as all the Fishers Island inhabitants. We also think that preserving the natural vegetation is consistent with the Suffolk County letter. In essence, we see that some simple lot line adjustments could be introduced that would require no change in the cul-de-sac road, that would preserve the lot line set backs and the set backs from Fox Avenue from the Osprey nest. It would maintain the minimum building lot size specified by the town planner that would provide the required frontage and would avoid replacing building envelopes over the old dump site. This could be introduced to achieve all those benefits and I would like Jim Reiter to draw your attention to some of the features of his sketch and these adjustments that could be easily effective and then I would like to conclude with some final comments. Jim Reiter: Lot 6 and 7, there is 6, that comes up on the haunch of the hill, we're proposing reducing the entrance to the lot down to 40 feet and simply moving it back fifty feet which gives the lot still the same one acre designation. We' re drawing the easement line all the way across the building envelope is there, instead of at the beginning of this hill, actually the beginning of the hill is here gets up on the haunch and the top of the knoll is there. The same is true of number 7 it is up there now and we' re suggesting bringing it down, that makes the buildable part of this lot all on the flat ground. Right now a great part of the building envelope is up on the hill as well as the property line. The driveways on number 7 and 8 are a great deal shorter, you can see that, because we've dropped it down and changed this, that the driveways are this big as opposed to almost twice the distance if you see the existing map. We have straightened the fire road instead of having to listen to the County about putting a curb in we have a straight line for the fire road. The conservation easement lines which came up and curved over that is a straight one and whereas on the plan you have conservation easement came up disjointed, moved around and finally got around this other lot. We think this is contiguous and a simpler, clearer idea about the properties. Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 all have three boundary lines instead of six boundary lines, this one has five boundary lines so the lots are more simply drawn and we feel that the 7 through 12 has a more even ratio of buildable to conservation percentage than on the scheme that is there. By redrawing 7 and 8, 8 got down here, the osprey nest is here, so its further away from the osprey nest. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 MAY 1 , 1989 Sam Gordon: To conclude, we have checked with the President and Vice President of Walsh Park and they have no objection to these lot line adjustments and see these as improvements for Walsh Park and I don' t think I'm mispeaking the responses that we have had from them in our conversations with them. We see these lot line changes as good planning and as a better subdivision for all concerned. We hope you will agree. We also believe that the Suffolk County letter gives you the authority to approve adjustments to lot lines per item one in Suffolk County letter and we would be very happy to see you approve the subdivision conditioned upon these lot line adjustments. We would certainly support that. We have talked with Chandler Palmer and he says within a week or ten days that they could affect the adjustments to the lot lines and we would like to say that we would like to see every effort made to expedite the adjustments and not to delay the approval process. Mr. Reiter is available immediately to work with Walsh Park to affect those changes so they don' t delay the approval process. The two remaining matters are grading and covenants and restrictions. We eluded before to what appears to be proposed grading. on the top of the knoll from summit 56 elevation to contour 36. We wonder if it is necessary and what is the intent of that grading? How many yards of fill are to be removed? What effect that will have on the profile of the knoll and potential erosion. Have all permits been acquired to effect that grading and to permit that grading? What are the plans for restoring and or replanting that open wound once it is introduced up there? We could understand the grading that is suggested on the south side of the knoll on the bank where the cul-de-sac road nudges up against it to hold that bank up and to permit the road to be built. We have grave concerns about any grading on the top of that knoll as it will seriously effect the profile. The last point are covenants and restrictions as Mr. Edwards noted the Suffolk County letter has suggested certain covenants and restrictions. We certainly agree that there should be meaningful covenants and restrictions introduced from the so called open space remaining lands on the perimeter of the subdivision. This is a very sensitive area. Along the East side you have the wetlands, along the North side you have the knoll, and along the West side you have the osprey nest and the old dump site and we certainly agree that for the benefit of Walsh Park residents, as well as for Fishers Island inhabitants, meaningful covenants probably which run with the land should protect the open space remaining lands for conservation purposes. We would also see some meaningful restrictions on use of the back halves of the building lots, the part marked for easements. We don' t quite know how you would envision those easements being instituted to govern activity on the back parts of those building lots but they encompass the wetlands on the East side of the development and the old dump site on the West side of the development. We certainly would like to see some meaningful covenants and restrictions on the back half of those lots which would prohibit ample storage or cultivation or unsightly items as well as the open space covenants and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 MAY 15 , 1989 restrictions. We support all those things we think they would make for a long lasting and attractive development for the residents of Walsh Park and Fishers Island. Thank you. Mr. Edwards: Is it my understanding that the applicant is going to submit another site plan? Mr. Reiter: I am not certain what the intent of the applicant is. He may be submitting an adjustment to the lot lines yet if the applicant were given an indication from the Town Planning Board for approval would be granted subject to adjustment of those lot line changes. Mr. Edwards: We' re talking about preliminary maps here, I just have a couple of personal feelings on this. I have seen a number of site plans come through that they have changed to cooperate with you people a lot have personally objected to. I think there is a big need for this on the island as so on the North fork and all the area along the coast. There is a need for housing. I objected to the cul-de-sac I wanted the road to go through and I still do. The majority of this board recommended a "M" zone for this piece of land. They didn' t want to see that they wanted to cooperate and try to keep it as nice an area as possible. Personally, I don't want to see this delayed and I hope you really don' t either. I think the board will take your suggestions to a work study and discuss them. The applicant can sent us another site plan from the applicant if they so desire, if not I think the process should go along and I would move that the preliminary hearing be closed. Jim Reiter: We don' t intend any delay with the approval process and we will work with the applicant to see if they would submit lot line adjustments. Mr. Orlowski: I think at this point that would be the best way for you to proceed is work with the applicant. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. 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 the Suffolk County Planning Commission comments. This minor subdivision is on 16.886 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-18-4-1. Mr. Latham: So moved. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, May 15, 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. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of July 25, 1988, April 3, 1989 and April 17, 1989. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, May 15, 1989 for a public hearing to amend the Subdivision Regulations as they pertain to highway specifications for subdivision roads., Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SUBDIVISIONS Final: Mr. Orlowski: Walter L. Grabie, Jr. - Board to authorize the Chairman to endorse the final maps dated February 6, 1989 for this lot line change located at Mattituck. This was approved October 31,1988 subject to filing of C & R' s and statement that the C & R' s have been filed. SCTM #1000-114-11-7.1,8,9. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps) Mr. Orlowski: East Marion Woods - Board to authorize the Chairman to endorse the final maps dated March 8, 1987. This major subdivision is on 59.827 acres located at East Marion. We received conditional final approval on August 15, 1988. All conditions have been met. SCTM #1000-30-1-5.1 Mr. Edwards: Move to endorse maps. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps) PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Anthonv & Sall v Pirrera - Board to review the map dated as amended April 11, 1989. This minor subdivision on 5.208 acres was approved and endorsed by the Chairman on March 13, 1989, maps have been revised as per Suffolk County Clerks Office. These are O.K. to endorse. (Chairman signed maps) SCTM #1000-40-1-20. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions an the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PRELIMINARY: Mr. Orlowski: North Grove Estates - Board to review granting an extension on preliminary approval from June 5, 1989 to December 5, 1989. This major subdivision is on 46. 5712 acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-95-4-4.1 Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SKETCH: Mr. Orlowski: John Beebe - Board to review granting an extension on sketch approval from May 1, 1989 to November 1, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 97,035 sq. ft. located at Cutchague. SCTM #1000-102-2-5. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Lorraine Terr - Board to review the sketch map dated April 19, 1989. Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This minor subdivision is on 12.823 acres at Orient. SCTM #1000-18-5-18.1. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Willow Terrace, Section II. - Board to review this proposed subdivision. This major subdivision is on 5. 55 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-26-2-39.10. Mr. Latham: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to deny this application. The survey dated January 10, 1989 for the following reasons: The premises in question is locatedin the R80., Residential Low Density District. The variances requested under Appeal No. 3766 were denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 18, 1988. On this same date the Zoning Board of Appeals granted alternative relief in reference to lot area reductions. The map submitted to the Planning Board, survey dated January 10, 1989, is not in conformance with the Town Code and also is not in accordancewith the Alternative Relief granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board is without power to approve the map as submitted. Mr. Edwards: Second. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, M. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SE EA DETERMINATIONS Mr. Orlowski: Cove Beach Estates - Board to review the granting of an extension to May 15, 1989 for the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this major subdivision located at East Marion. SCTM #1000-22-3-15,1 & 18.3 . Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any question on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Codin: Is there a particular problem with the statement at this time? Mr. Orlowski: No, we since relieved our reviewing firm in order to speed things up. The new people are on board and are reviewing it now, and we should have an answer shortly but we would like to grant this extension to give them time. We will probably get back to you before long. Mr. Codin: Has there not been a final submitted by Mr. Emilita? Mr. Orlowski: There was, and there were a lot of questions as to who did it and some of the things that were in it. I think it would be to your benefit if we allowed our new people to review it and come back with a much quicker precise answer. Mr. Orlowski: Garrick Mailer - Board to start the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 MAY 1 , 1989 coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This lot line change in on 2.9 acres located at Nassau Point. SCTM #1000-118-1-16,17,18.1. Mr. Latham: I move we start the coordination. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ********** REPORTS AND BONDS: Mr. Orlowski: Frank & Myrtle Hendrickson - Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission comments dated April 10, 1989. This lot line change in on 95,756 sq. ft. located at Southold. SCTM #1000-70-4-44 & 45. Mr. John Wagner: I'm from Esseks, Esseks, and Angel. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant if you should have any questions. Mr. Orlowski: We don' t have enough members here tonight to override anything the County has proposed, we are one person shy. The comments that we would like to keep in there in the covenants and restrictions. Mr. Edwards: There are some covenants that we would like to ask for. Mr. Orlowski: I don' t think you had a problem with those, did you? Mr. Wagner: The only question I have was number one. The very first comment in the letter respecting the Suffolk County Department of Health. I gave it some thought this afternoon and I'm of the opinion that this probably is not within the category of development of reality subdivision that would require such approval. I hope you are of the same opinion. Mr. Orlowski: We would have no problem overriding reasons one and three. We don' t have a problem overriding those, any other comments I think are pretty well standard comments. I don' t know if you have a problem with those. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Wagner: The only thing I question is the 100 ft. setback and I understand it' s the Town' s policy regarding the setback which is also 75 feet. Mr. Orlowski: Well, that' s a valid point so we could adjust that one too. We' ll have to hold it over. We' ll plan on overriding 1, 3 and 4 at our next meeting. You have our list of covenants and restrictions that we are asking for. Mr. Wagner: I probably have it in the file. Mr. Orlowski: Those we will want. Mr. Edwards: I move that we ask for the following covenants and restrictions: No lot line should be changed in any manner at any future date unless authorized by the Town of Southold Planning Board. No new residential structure or sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or other wise located within 75 feet of the top of the bank along the shoreline of Jockey Creek. No storm waterrunoff resulting from the development and improvement of the subdivision or any of its lots shall be discharged directly into Jockey Creek. We request revised property deeds describing the proposed two lots (Lot #1 equalling 53,613 sq. ft. and Lot #2 equaling 42,143 sq. ft. ) be submitted to the Planning Board. This must be submitted before the Planning Board will authorize the Chairman to endorse the final map. Note that the final map must note that a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions has been filed in the Suffolk County Clerk' s Office. Note also, that the map must be filed in the office of the County Clerk. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SITE PLANS Mr. Orlowski - Southold Free Library - Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This site plan is located on the Main Road at Southold. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: First Class Auto Body - Board to review and recommend to the Building Department for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This site plan is located on the Main Road and Peconic Lane at Peconic. SCTM #1000-75-5-10 Mr. Orlowski: I believe there is some paving to be done in the back. Is there anyone here representing First Class Auto Body? Mr. Latham: I will move subject to paving, grading and handicapped parking. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Daval Tents and Part Z.Services, Inc. - Board to review the site plan dated as amended April 30, 1989. This site plan is on the corner of Cox Lane and Oregon Road at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-83-3-4. 4. Mr. Orlowski: Everything is in order for uncoordinated review. The Planning Board can take lead agency and make a determination of non-significance in the uncoordinated review. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any quest-ions on the motion? All those in favor? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 MAY 1 , 1989 Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Also, we can approve it, we are looking for a couple of conditions in there. Mr. Edwards: I make a motion we approve it subject to the engineers review and the black topping of the parking area to the following specifications: That the minimum requirements for paving the parking area should be one and a half inches of asphalt on top of two and one- half inches of binder stabilizer compacted soil. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Pachman: Attorney for the applicant. I think I just heard the last item which was the requirement of black top, we object to the use of black top because we have been unable to find anyplace in the ordinance where black top is a requirement. Blue stone is a non-dust provision for cover and has been approved by this Planning Board before and we do not see why in this area which is not near any residential housing, where there is no public traffic ingress or egress from this warehouse area and we would appreciate the board to reconsider the issue of the asphalt. Mr. Orlowski: It appears when I talked to the owner he had no problem with that at all. Mr. Falkowski: I did have a problem with it that is why we' re here tonight. I thought the matter was straightened out, there is a problem with it because for some reasons it appears that we have been singled out to asphalt where it is not required by the Town code. When I spoke to you, you told me it was required by the town law and we've been unable to find what section of town law requires that. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we' re asking for a dust resurface and this Planning Board is using blacktop as a dust resurface. We have in other approvals and we' re asking for it in this one. We're in a light industrial office zone and we feel it should be because you have a lot of heavy traffic going in and out of there. These blue stone driveways have not held up and we have had a lot of problems with people coming back at us later on so we feel that this is what' it should be. Mr. Falkowski: Wait a minute. Mr. Orlowski: I 'd rather not discuss the other applicant. Mr. Pachman: Mr. Chairman, I am not here to be in a dialogue with you but again the ordinance as I read it, unless there is some other section that I am unfamiliar with and with all due PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 MAY 1 , 1989 respect you would draw my attention to it I would appreciate it' s 100.191 subdivision. I think it says grading and surfacing and that says a dustless surface, it does not say an asphalt surface, and I assure you that blue stone on a proper base where there is adequate drainage will accommodate the provisions of this particular use. I know that you would prefer an asphalt requirement but again the ordinance calls for a dustless surface and if we are going to supply you with the bluestone surface with an appropriate base to accommodate it with adequate drainage we can comply with the ordinance. Mr. Orlowski: We can put this on hold and we can discuss it with our attorney. Mr. Pachman: I think that is unfair because this matter has been pending before this board since October of last year and I do believe and I 'm coming here with a view towards resolving this matter, and getting it done but under the ordinance I believe the matter was filed with this board in excess of 45 days and you have not acted upon it. Mr. Orlowski: We have to discuss this with our attorney. Mr. Pachman: Well, I did speak with your attorney, I spoke with Mr. Schondebare and I told him what the concerns were and he indicated to me that hopefully the matter would be approved, but I came out here just to assure myself that there would be no hookers in this thing. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I don' t believe there is a hooker in it because I talked with the owner on Saturday and there didn' t seem to be any problem. Mr. Pachman: Well Al is here Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: I don' t think what we are asking for is that difficult. Mr. Pachman: I think there is some $50,000 or $60,000 dollars different in price. Mr. Falkowski: I asked you if the law required asphalt and you said yes. Mr. Orlowski: I said our policy, I didn' t say the law, I said policy. Mr. Pachman: Mr. Orlowski and members of the board, the difference is $60,000 dollars. If we were in a area where there was going to be a lot of traffic, or a pedestrian area or residential area where you were concerned about dust and various things of that nature I could understand the boards concern. We are in an isolated area, we are using it for warehouse purposes only, and we are not going to get the kind of traffic you are PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 MAY 1 , 1989 talking about. Therefore, the dust resurface that will be supplied, a blue stone surface on an adequate base will accommodate and fulfill the obligation of the ordinance. I really don' t see what the problem is, the matter again as I said has been in your hands or office since October of 1988 and it' s well in excess of the 45 day period. Now, even though that is the position I am willing to take, I'm willing to accommodate you and give you everything that you are requiring provided it accommodates the ordinance but, I can' t see where you' re telling me that does accommodate the ordinance. Mr. Latham: Is this just a warehouse? It is not a store. Mr. Pachman: It is not a store, it is a warehouse. We have a store located on Main Road in Mattituck. The store up here that is on Main Road is going to be closed. This is just for warehouse and office purposes. I understand that it is going to be recycled concrete and not blue stone so it is actually going to come into a harder surface. If I said it' s going to be blue stone, it is on the plan recycled concrete and it is a very hard surface. I just spoke with the engineer. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward who is another member who also goes along with us and Mr. Mullen are not here tonight to make any comment and I know they have passed the comments to us that they wanted blacktop. This plan did come in rather late this afternoon. Mr. Pachman: I understand, the problems we have is that we thought that this matter had been approved, the building is unfortunately moving with the spec and my clients lease in up in his existing location and we' re working under a hardship situation here and any further delay can only force me to go to other sources other than this board. I appreciate the matter that it is on your calendar and I appreciate that you are accommodating us and I understand that and I 'm glad that 99% of the items here have been complied with and have been taken care of but I still am at a loss to understand, I know the preference would be to build this road in another fashion but again, the ordinance doesn' t require it. I know you have your preferences but that doesn't mean that we are not in compliance with the ordinance. I think it is an aggressive position that the board is taking which is not needed in this particular area. Mr. Orlowski: We have a motion subject to those conditions, we can proceed with the motion and argue out that final condition or we can hold the motion, talk with our engineer and the rest of the board and give you an answer on the fifteenth. Mr. Pachman: Why don' t we do it this way, may I suggest that you possibly could approve this subject to the blacktopping or the blue stone or the recycled concrete, it is not going to go in for some time. If the board can just leave that item open for discussion so we can come under a basis that maybe we can PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 MAY 1 , 1989 agree on. Maybe you will have changed your mind but at least we can have this matter proceed so we can have the permits that are necessary subject to no surfacing will be put in until this board acts further on it. We would be accommodating both sides and maybe sitting down across a table we can accommodate both sides. Mr. Orlowski: We could do that. I can say up until this date we have not held up the applicant. Mr. Latham: Just let me ask a question. We' re talking about the dust free surface but what about the thickness? Mr. Simback: A cross section would be existing conditions which is sand and gravel and some bankrun which we would compact. Then we would probably put in with a compact of three inch thick crushed recycled concrete. Mr. Orlowski: You telling us that is $50,000 dollars less than blacktop? Mr. Simback: Yes. Not only blacktop because if you put in blacktop you have to put in drainage and you call for curbing. You probably would want curbing all around the asphalt. You are talking $50,000 to $60,000 dollars with curbing, drainage and asphalt. Mr. Orlowski: So you' re not showing the curbing here. Mr. Simback: No. Your adjourning properties have bluestone. Mr. Latham: You are going to use crushed concrete rather than the bluestone? Mr. Simback: I would prefer that my client use the concrete. Mr. Latham: Thank you. Mr. Edwards: I would like to rephrase my motion. I move for approval subject to the engineers review and an agreement between the Planning Board and the applicant on the surface for the parking area. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: No C.O. will be obtained until that is taken care of. Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 MAY 1 , 1989 ********** Mr. Orlowski: Local Laws in Relation to Z in - Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board on the following Local Laws: 1. Local Law in Relation to hotel guest units -make it a maximum of 600 square feet. 2. A Local Law in Relation to Zoning (Agriculture Operation) which takes out the wording Commercial in the Zoning Code. 3 . Local Law in Relation to Zoning (rooms for conferences and attendees which is some type of a misprint that our Town attorney picked up. Mr. Orlowski: I think a recommendation to approve all of these is in order. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that we make a recommendation to the Town Board for approval � of all three. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Beechwood Acres - Board to discuss this application with the applicant. SCTM #1000-68-4-2,3. Mr. Scott Johnson: There is only going to be two houses so I see no need to put in a f irewell. Mr. Orlowski: We can run that by the fire district to see if they request on or not and there is a letter to them that hasn' t been answered yet. We will see what they come up with. As a matter of fact you could be in contact with the board yourself or the fire commissioners and go over that with them. You can set up an appointment with them any time. Mr. Edwards: If they don' t require one please have them send us back a letter stating that. Mr. Johnson: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Alan Cardinale - Board to discuss this application with the applicant. He has informed us he will not be here so that will come off the agenda. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 MAY 1 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: I have nothing further on my agenda. Any questions from the board? No further questions, I ' ll entertain a motion. Mr. Edwards: Move we adjourn. Mr. Latham: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being no further business to come before the board, on motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Latham, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jane Rousseau, Temporary Secretary Bennett Orlowski Jr. , 9hairman RECEIVED ALND FILED BY RK DATE (01 % '. 5 0 Town Clerk, Town of .,, o t of ....___.._..