Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/15/1989 r �m Town Hall. 53095 Main Road u P.O. Box 1179 m Southold. New York 1 1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MAY 15, 1989 .Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Member William Mullen Member Richard Ward Member G. Richie Latham Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro Planner Trainee, Robert G. Kassner Temporary Secretary, Jane Rousseau Absent: Member Kenneth Edwards Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is the public hearing to amend the Subdivision Regulations as they pertain to highway specifications for subdivision roads. We have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times and the Traveler Watchman. I will ask if there are any objections to these specifications? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of these specifications? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Being there are no further comments I will declare this hearing closed. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Latham: I move we approve these regulations. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: We' ll make the recommendation to the Town Board. 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. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 MAY 15, 1989 ********** Mr. Orlowski: Next we have North Road Associates - Board to keep the public hearing open from February 6, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 16. 886 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-18-3-1. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ********** Mr. Orlowski: Next we have DBM Affordable. Housing Fro Deal - Board to keep the public hearing open from May 1, 1989. This major subdivision is on 37.762 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-55-6.15.1. Does the board have any question tonight on the hearing itself? What is the board' s pleasure. Mr. Ward: Move to close the hearing. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: On the preliminary maps? Mr. Ward: Move to approve the preliminary maps dated 4/12/89 with road and drainage plans dated September 12, 1989 and February 3, 1989. Note that the road width be reduced to 24 feet as per Highway Committee meeting. Also note that the final maps must incorporate Sidney Bowne' s report dated March 28, 1989. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of July 11, 1988 and August 4, 1988 . Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I' ll also entertain a motion that the next Planning Board meeting be held on June 5th, 1989. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SUBDIVISIONS: Mr. Orlowski: Town of Southold at Soundview Avenue - Board to review the maps dated January 27, 1989. This major subdivision is on 5. 83 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-59-9-10. Mr. Latham: I have a resolution Mr. Chairman. A public hearing was held on April 3, 1989 on the map dated January 27, 1989. The Planning Board should make a motion for an extension of the time in which the Planning Board must take action. This extension will run until the following conditions are met: 1. Road profiles must be submitted to the Planning Board for review by the Town Engineer. 2. Final maps, 4 paper prints and 2 mylars, with current Health Department approval must be submitted to the Planning Board. 3 . The intentions for the open space must be submitted PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 MAY 15, 1989 and reviewed by the Town Attorney. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Gilbert and Ann Amia a - Board to set Monday, June 5, 1989 at 3:30 p.m. on the final maps surveyed December 8, 1987 . This lot line change is on Sound View Avenue at Southold. SCTM #1000-135-1-23 & p/o 24. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Ward: Abstain. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Preliminary: Mr. Orlowski: Walsh Park - Board to review the preliminary maps dated February 8, 1989. This affordable housing project is located on Fishers Island. SCTM #1000-6-2-3 .1. All is in order for a preliminary approval. 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. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ********** PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Long Meadow Estates - Board to review granting an extension of conditional preliminary approval from June 12, 1989 to December 12, 1989. This major subdivision is on 36. 9636 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-113-7-19.1. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketchs: Mr. Orlowski: Rita Brown - Board to review granting an extension of sketch approval from May 6, 1989 to November 6, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 12. 506 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-94-3-1.3 . Mr. Latham: Move we grant an extension. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Dorothy Robertson - Board to review the sketch maps dated March 31, 1989. Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This minor subdivision is on 2.508 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-=13-1-10. Mr. Latham: I move we approve the sketch plan. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to start the coordination process? Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SE RA DETERMINATIONS Mr. Orlowski: Barbara Dow - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 4. 99 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-17-2-6 . Mr. Latham: I move that we give it a positive declaration because it is an unbuildable lot. There is a huge hole, I inspected it a short time ago. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded for a positive declaration. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. We will schedule a scoping session as soon as possible. Mr. Orlowski: James Cross - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This set off is on 7. 9140 acres located a Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-108-3-12. 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. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Herbert Mandel - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This set off is on 11.912 acres located at East Marion. Mr. Latham: So moved for a negative declaration. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: William Lindse - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 17 . 4350 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM # 1000-113-7-2. 1 & 2. 3 . Everything is in order for a negative declaration. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Hanauer & pj�le - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 4. 945 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-50-6-4. Mr. Ward: I move based on the Long Environmental Review Form and Field observations, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal may significantly effect the environment, therefore, a determination of a Positive Declaration is in order. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 MAY 15, 1989 Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. We will set up a scoping session. *********** Mr. Orlowski: James Cohill - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Review Act. This major subdivision is on 18. 9108 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-107-1.2. Mr. Mullen: So moved for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowsk: Robert Van Nostrand - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This set off is on 17 .595 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-25-4-11. 4. Mr. Latham: So moved for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ********** Mr. Orlowski: Cove Beach Estates - Board to review the status of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this major subdivision at East Marion. SCTM #1000-22-3-15.1 & 18.3 . We have the report back from the reviewer. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Ward: I move we accept the report and transmit it to the applicant for their response and review. Mr. Latham: Second. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Mullen: I would like to also give the applicant the opportunity to contact the consultant if he has any pertinent questions regarding the report. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. REPORTS AND BONDS: Mr. Orlowski: Frank and Myrtle Hendrickson - Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated April 10, 1989. Board to set Monday, June 5, 1989 at 7 :45 p.m. for a public hearing on the final maps dated December 1, 1988. This lot line change is on 95 .756 sq. ft. located at Southold. SCTM #(1000-70-4-44 & 45 . Mr. Orlowski: Does the board want to do anything with the Suffolk County Planning Commissions report in overriding the three reasons we talked about at the last meeting? Reasons one, three, and four? (1) The Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is not necessary; as this lot line change involves two existing dwellings. ( 3) The Planning Board has requested that revised property deeds for the proposed two lots (Lot #1 equaling 53 ,613 square feet and Lot ##2 equaling 42,143 square feet) be submitted before the Chairman be authorized to endorse the final map. (4) Town Code provides for review and appropriate permits for any new residential structure or sanitary disposal facility within 75 feet of the shoreline. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would move that subject to those things we address the Planning Commission report based on that response. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I' ll entertain a. motion to set a hearing for June 5th, 1989, at 7 :45 p.m. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. John Wagner: Attorney from Esseks/Esseks and Angel - You received a letter from my office regarding the new deeds for the lot line change. Have you had a chance to review that letter at all? Mr. Orlowski: No. Mr. John Wagner: The second question regards the declaration that was to be filed in connection with this application, I believe an executed copy was submitted to the board, have you had an opportunity to review that? Mr. Orlowski: The Town Attorney has that now. Mr. John Wagner: My client is interested on having this acted upon as quickly as possible. Would it be possible at the public hearing to have this acted upon all the foregoing? If I were to bring maps suitable for your signature on that date, would you be willing to expedite them on that date assuming that all goes as planned. Mr. Orlowski: I can' t answer that question. Ms. Spiro: We definitely need the maps before that night. Mr. Wagner: That can be arranged. No problem. Mr.Orlowski: Bertram Holder - Board to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission report dated April 10, 1989. This set off is on 34. 619 acres located at Arshamomaque. SCTM #1000-57-2-1.1. Mr. Ward: I move that we previously requested Covenants and Restrictions. A draft has been submitted to the office and some revisions have been asked for. If #5 of the draft is revised to read as follows, all conditions of the Suffolk County Report will have been met: "Upon said set-off or subdivision of the lots as set forth above, the property so set-off or subdivided shall automatically merge with said property owners land and shall be considered one parcel. A map of the subdivision shall be filed in the office of the Countv Clerk. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 MAY 15, 1989 The Planning Board is not requiring that the applicant comply with #3 and #4 of the report, as the road is existing and no new building lots are proposed. Final maps must note that: a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions has been filed in the Suffolk County Clerk' s Office which effects lots in this subdivision. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Paradise-2 _the-�Ba - Board to review the Engineer Report dated May 8,1989. This major subdivision is located at Southold. SCTM #1000-70-13-( 20. 1-10. 10) . Mr. Latham: I move we adopt the report. Mr. Ward: Second Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. CHANGE OF ZONE SITE PLANS: Mr. Orlowski: Port of EEMt - Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This site plan is located on the Main Road at Southold. SCTM #1000-56-6-6.1, 10. 1. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 MAY 15,1989 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Cliffside/Tidemark - Board to review revised maps dated May fO, 1989. This site plan is on 7. 132 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-45-1-1. Mr. Ward: I think we are in a position to O.K. our comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the special exception, subject that the side yard should be shown at the 30 foot setbacks, not presently shown at the 20 foot. Mr. Orlowski: I think there were a couple of other revisions. Did you have something else on here? Mr. Ward: There are other minor revisions that we have identified on the map along with the setbacks that should be transmitted back to the applicant and the ZBA should be sufficient. Mr. Raynor: Mr. Ward, you have reference to the West property line. The East property line the buildings are beyond the 30 foot. Mr. Ward: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to send to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I ask that you re-evaluate it as already certified by the building inspectors office but the revisions for this plan by that office subject to acceptance by the ZBA. All I am requesting that the board to do, is at the time they send over for the special exception to the ZBA, the site plan that you have before you, that you also send a copy over to the building inspector. The building inspector' s office has already certified the prior plan and we would like him to at least be knowledgeable about what is going on in addition to your board as well as the ZBA so they can certify this new claim. Mr. Orlowski: Will they be amended as we requested just now.> Mr. Raynor: I don't see any particular problem. Mr. Orlowski: You can carry that over yourself you know. Mr. Raynor: I don' t think the building inspector' s office will review it until such time they have some type of correspondence from your board. Mr. Latham: I move we send it over to be revised subject to those changes. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So moved. Mr. Orlowski: The Shoppes at Mattituck - Board to discuss this site plan with the applicant. This site plan is located on the Corner of Cox Neck Road and County Route 48 at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-121-2-1. Is anyone here representing the applicant? Mr. Lewandowski: I 'm here with the owner and he has asked me to speak to the board. What happened, unfortunately, about a year ago I was contacted by the architect to stake out a proposed well for the site which I did. They sent a plan at that time and I staked it out and about two months ago the property was sold and the new owners acquired the plans from the architect for the new building. Unfortunately, from the time I did the original stakeout and the new owner took over there was a change in site plan. Unknown to either one of us, Mr. McCovell got in contact with me by phone and asked me to stake out the building, he was in a hurry to get started, and I did. Unfortunately, we never got together to compare site plans, and I had used the wrong site plans to stake it out. I understand that there is no violation of the building set-back and there is room to fit the required parking in. I realize that the town has approved the site plan and I realize how much work and effort goes into that, but since there is room to do it, we were hoping that the Planning Board would reconsider a new proposed site plan. Mr. Orlowski: Does the board have any comments or questions? Mr. Ward: I didn't really see it. Mr. Lewandowski: There is adequate room, it just has to be revised. Mr. Orlowski: The parking in the back is not the way we wanted it. If you remember we changed it in the beginning. Mr. Ward: Part of the problem with it is it' s going to make a very tight corner at the back rear corner compared to what was originally proposed. What would have to be done if you want to pursue it, our feelings are after looking at it was that we weren' t in favor of it. If you want to pursue and show a whole site plan to show everything here, what the radius is and everything would be, then we would take a look at it further if you wish to do that. It' s a little sketchy as to what is shown to us here now. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Lewandowski: The owner would like to get started on this as soon as possible. Do you have any idea the time frame if I resubmitted a new site plan before you can make a decision? Mr. Ward: We don' t know. You would have to submit it and then we would have to review it. There is going to be time involved in doing that. I can' t tell you what kind of time would be involved in that because looking at this I don't think we would be in a position to say yes or no based on this. Mr. Lewandowski: You have no idea the time frame that would be involved assuming I could get a site plan in this week. The end of the week. I can probably get one in by the end of this week. Mr. Orlowski: We don' t meet again for another three weeks. There is one thing I can tell you, that type of plan was submitted to us at first and we had it changed to accommodate that parking because we did not like that parallel parking on the back curb so I don' t even know if another site plan is going to get any approval from this board. We went through a lot with the plan the way it is and as it is and I know you made a mistake but it' s no way to go back to the original site plan that we did not want. I don' t know if the board feels that they may feel different when this site plan is completed and done, it is up to the board. Mr. Lewandowski: The parallel parking in the rear now, as opposed to diagonal parking, I don' t believe there would be much difference in the space between the rear of the cars in either case. Coming around the corner with the diagonal parking the cars are going to be - - -, I think the distance between the building and the corner and the parking area will probably be the same in either case. I don' t believe there is any amount gained by having diagonal parking. Mr. Ward: The biggest problem is the turning radius at that corner, we are asking for vehicle, service trucks to use that rear for accessing and from what I see, I don' t see that it works. Just looking at this I don' t know if we can consider it. There is a lot of work that went into the other one in terms of what was done and it would have to be worked out in order to be reviewed, which takes time. Mr. Lewandowski: If I did drop off a site plan you would consider it. Mr. Orlowski: I am not in favor of it, I will tell you right now. Mr. Ward: We would look at it but I know it' s not what we wanted. Mr. Orlowski: It' s just too close to the back. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Ward: I don' t think you are going to develop that turning radius that we need, trucks in the back based on the way it is. We would not accept it the way it is shown to us right now. If you want to spend the time and effort to see what could be developed, we will look at it. Mr. Lewandowski: O.K. , thank you. ********** Mr. Orlowski: Andreas Markakis - Board to review this site plan located on Boisseau Avenue at Southold. SCTM #1000-122-1.1. Mr. Mullen: I would like to read the resolution. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Engineer' s report dated May 5, 1989. The report states that the maximum allowable parking which could be provided is limited to three spaces ( the diagonal parking stalls #1, 2, and 3) . The report also states that these three spaces could be used by a majority of vehicles if caution is exercised entering and exiting; and WHEREAS, the required number of parking spaces for a restaurant, as described in Article X1X of the Town Code, is 1 space per 3 seats or 1 space per 100 square feet of floor space, whichever is greater. The building area for the proposed site plan is 1,547 sq. ft. , thus requiring 15 parking spaces. The proposed plan is for 15 seats, thus requiring 5 parking spaces. As per the code, 15 spaces are required; and WHEREAS, a restaurant is a use which creates a large volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. With this particular use it is not possible to design the site so as to ensure that the individuals will use the site with caution while exiting, entering, and driving around the site. It is also not possible to restrict cars which are larger than the majority of cars, from using the parking area; and WHEREAS, based on the Planning Board' s review and the Engineer's report on the number of parking spaces for the site, the board feels that there is insufficient parking for the proposed use; and be it therefore, RESOLVED that the Planning Board deny the application. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNNING BOARD PAGE 16 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Markakis: There is discrimination in this place. I have plans right here with respect to the Engineer' s report, my engineer and myself we do not agree. The people who saw the parking noticed the three diagonals are O.K. , the corner parking lot where he wants regular side cars. One was a blazer type car and the other was a four door Buick sedan. What more do you want? That much for the engineer' s report. As far as the discrimination which started when I bought this building by someone then in the porch of the fence, that' s where the war of nerves started. I picked a few police reports and if you will allow me I would like to read some of the contents to the public. I will save you time just put them on record. I have a few reports of discrimination, threat of life, they pulled a knife on me outside of my door. As far as your position, this is a Certificate of Occupancy which I got July 26, 1983 and this was issued on the basis of five parking spots which are on the side front which was approved by this board. The previously meeting I was told that those five parking spots were now two. I stated that I am stupid, I do not understand this, but can you explain to the public who is very smart and alive, how five parking spots in the course of five years shrink to two?? If you can explain please. So this is the situation, would you please give it to me in writing so I can proceed with my discrimination case. Please, now is the chance to tell you because this is burning me. I admire your sensitivity when it comes to me in person, the God damn greek, I don' t admire when it comes to other people in the area. You have a letter here, June 28, 1984 to the Supervisor, regarding very dangerous positions, very dangerous conditions of traffic, traffic accidents happen outside of Wayside Market. There is a traffic count from one single working day from 8 o'clock in the morning to 2:30 in the afternoon. Two hundred cars parking in that little spot, which is public property. Public property. Two Hundred cars, I went before the board, I didn't get any answer, I wrote to the board and buck was passing to the Building Department to the Planning Department, this is the letter that I told you at the last meeting that the Highway Superintendent, there was no sidewalk there, this is the one that Mrs. Cochran read and told me what she told me and this is a transmittal from the Supervisor to Mr. Dean at the time, to the Building Department and to the Planning Board for which I have no response. So one law applies to the God damn greek and another law applies to the rest of the people. But I am here 36 years, 36 years, 22 of which I pay taxes here in Southold. Alright. Thank you very much. DISCUSSIONS Mr. Orlowski: Alan Cardinale - Board to discuss this application with the applicant. SCTM #1000-122-2-1.1 PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 MAY 15, 1989 Phil Cardinale: Attorney for client. Good evening, I have from the board the letters of April 7th, and April 18th and we are in the process of complying with those requests. In the process of discussing those changes there was an additional change that we were propose to show on the sketch plan as we present it to the board and I wanted to run it by you tonight rather than just show you a map in a week or two. Specifically, the road coming in on the original sketch plan is at the far west side of the property but we would prefer to place in about the middle of the property. I have a sketch here as to how we would propose to alter that roadway coming in. It is not a question of anything except the position and I wanted to get the board to indicate or at least to review it to see if you have any objections. If you have strong objections it would obviously be a waste of our time to do it. If you have no objections, Al Jr. is here to explain the concept of what they want to do with the piece. This is where the road was and this is where they would like to move it over so it comes through the middle of that lot. Mr. Ward: It would subdivide the business property. Mr. Phil Cardinale: Yes, in a sense that the road will be in the middle of it instead of on the side of it that is right. The reasoning for that has something to do with the way that they propose to develop this property. Mr. Alan Cardinale Jr. - My father has done some commercial work down in South Carolina and they effectively created a bumper zone through the residential area from the commercial area by having an entrance through the middle with heavy landscaping. We feel with the surrounding property on the west side that it might be much better if we were able to create a drive through the center. We want to divide the commercial into two separate buildings instead of having one long strip type center. Ms. Scopaz: Can I ask you a question? What do you intend to do with the business portion of the property once you split it with the road? Mr. Alan Cardinale: It would still remain one piece basically, we just want to have the road down the center primarily for the Ms. Scopaz: What happens after you develop the business? You going to have a road going through a shopping center? Mr. Alan Cardinale: What they have done, and it is on a much grander scale, they have the centers in the entrance areas and it is basically a convenience for the residential areas behind but they have gates sometimes after the commercial area where a car can go through, separating the two. Heavy landscape borders behind, and also the area in the middle. You can do it PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 MAY 15, 1989 with landscape meridians and having a center drive through and going through to left or right, depending. Mr. Ward: I think you would have to more fully illustrate what your intent is for us to be able to even consider this. I think right now we are all having problems with this, I think it is something we could look at if you would show us exactly what you have in mind. Mr. Phil Cardinale: From what I heard from what he just said, I think the two positives that the board picked up on immediately are: You won' t run the road on the side there which is next to one of the residential pieces, in other words you keep your road out of way of the other residential pieces, the other thing I think is favorably is the fact that it would do away with the possibility of a split center because he is splitting the center in half. I assume you are not too crazy about strip centers. Mr. Ward: I don' t know if we are in favor of it, even to suggest we are, it is just that what we really need to do is for you to present something more graphic as to pictures and things as to what you really plan to do. Mr. Alan Cardinale: What happened is when we went to the architect to get these drawn up, he indicated that he felt it would be more attractive to go down the middle. Before we pursued the road specifications we wanted to make sure we had the road in the right location. Which comes first. Mr. Phil Cardinale: Do you have something to show the board? Photographs or something, so they can see it. Mr. Orlowski: I think since you have been in somewhat of a hurry to get started here that this board is going to want to see the site plan for that business property in total before we make any decision. To me you are subdividing before you even start the frontage. Mr. Phil Cardinale: That is true, but if we just go and do what you want us to do, which is to get the sketch approved with the road on the side and then move to final, the subdivision is in and if they want to develop with the road in the middle they already have a road placed on their subdivision, then we will come back in front of you at that time and try to move the road. The concept is, you really can' t tell how it is going to look until you do the site work. If we put the road where it is presently proposed, which is the more conventional way of doing it, we would have to then move it. Ms. Scopaz: Why would you have to move the road? Once you have the road set for a subdivision and you come in with a site plan for a business piece of property, why would you have to move the road? The road is for the residential subdivision and you need PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 MAY 15, 1989 to have access of that road for your business property. The assumption that you are going to have to move the road if you put it the way the board originally asked for it, is not founded on anything. Mr. Phil Cardinale: Obviously we wouldn' t have to move the road, we would have a road, but we wouldn't want two roads so if our concept of development of the commercial piece called for a winding road in the middle of the commercial piece it would be duplicative to have two roads, so at that point we would be back saying "that road that has been approved as part of the subdivision, we now want to abandon to develop the business piece. Ms. Scopaz: But your business piece is only 200 feet deep, you are not going to require a road to develop that business piece as a business piece. Mr. Phil Cardinale: I understand what you are saying, that' s true, we are only dealing with the road here for the residential part of the subdivision. The concept by which he is going to develop the front, the business piece, lends itself to the residential subdivision getting right into the middle of it. Unusual to be sure, but that is where he wants to put his road. If we have the subdivision approved, as it is presently proposed, and we come back to you for a site plan approval of the business portion of this we are going to be asking to abandon the road that we just got approved so we can move it. That is why we are here tonight to ask if you have any objection to moving it now? Mr. Ward: Process both site plans together so we can see what you fully intend to do with the commercial site. Do your 20 scale site plan. We would have to see that in order to even be able to judge or make the call. Mr. Phil Cardinale: I understand what you are saying. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: The only other thing I have is the Cove at Southold. You made an inspection today? Mr. Mullen: Yes, we did. Unfortunately, there was no one there that could give us any input, other than the salesman. They have foundations for three structures there, there is some landscaping. We would like to go back there when there is someone there to respond to our input. Mr. Latham: We would like to see a plan. Mr. Ward: What is the applicant asking for? Mr. Larry Kogel: President of the Cove. We were asking for a Certificate of Occupancy for a number of units, we have put PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 MAY 15, 1989 inlandscaping. There are nine units that are currently landscaped ready and we are asking that a Certificate of Occupancy bedelivered on the cluster of four units, that landscaping will be finished, and its the board' s request that we do thelandscaping on all of the units, all 33 of which a number of them are still under construction and it is not feasible to do that at this time. I don't think our request is extraordinary and it has been done in the past where units have been released with C.O. ' s prior to a 100% all site work and landscaping done. I can answer any questions you had at the site. What you probably saw there were landscaping ties that are going to retain the swimming pool and tennis court which we just recently got approval, approximately 45 days ago. We have foundations to the rear which were held up approximately a year, mitigating some concerns for the Board of Trustees after they stopped our construction. That is why we have not been able to proceed in an orderly fashion. Again, we have some anxious homeowners that would, subject to the building department making sure that we complied with all their regulations, our homeowners are anxious to move in and it just requires your approval at this point. If there is any financial concerns, we can address them also. Mr. Latham: I have a question, where the ties are stored, I went with Mr. Mullen today, the ties are stored up on the bank after you take the ties away and put them around the pool on the other side of the road. Mr. Kogel: Those ties are actually going on both sides. Mr. Latham: Shouldn't they be finished a little bit, I mean you have a very nice entrance? Some of the finished landscaping in front. Mr. Kogel: Our landscaper, Mr. Coffey, is proceeding to do the work, that is why we had the railroad ties delivered and he has been working everyday on it until it is complete. Due to the nature of the type of road that was approved in the subdivision, it is just a stone road so it looks like it is sketchy and unfinished, but it is passable and it is maintained on a weekly basis by our construction crews and the homeowners that do move in will not have any problem what so ever. Mr. Latham: It wasn' t the road, it just that before the road, between the entrance where the ties are stored. Mr. Kogel: We had to store the ties somewhere. Mr. Latham: I know, but that doesn' t look finished to me. Mr. Mullen: Our understanding is that people are looking to get in there the middle of June so we are looking at approximately one month. I believe that in two to three weeks, you could make considerable progress and we could come back then, if you would. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 MAY 15, 1989 give us a call when the ties are in and some more landscaping, then you can show us what buildings you are interested in getting C.O. ' s, and we can look at them and right there talk to us about what we might need and what we don' t need. Mr. Ward: One concern we do have, is that you would take your site plan and for these four units, draw a distinct line on as to what you are asking for approval on, including finished landscape for those four units. We are reluctant to give you approval in a sense through the Building Department for release of four units without distinctly showing that it is only for a partial site plan so that if you could show the overall plan, and then for these four units show the line around those four units and everything outside you are not asking for approval of, this is what you are asking for approval on right now. Normally, if it is a big project, you go in phases, you never filed this as a phased map so normally when we do phases as we did with Founders, and some of the other projects in town, we have been able to look at steps of the project and approve it as phases. In a sense, we could handle as a phase map for landscaping and site amenities. Mr. Kogel: In other words, if we indicate on the map the cluster, the first cluster is a four unit cluster that we are talking about, we could schedule a meeting on the site at a convenient time and I guess the members of the board would be able to determine at that time whether or not it suits your criteria. Mr. Orlowski: We would like to know exactly what you are asking for? Mr. Kogel: We are just asking for a C.O. on a particular unit. Mr. Orlowski: You didn' t note it on the site plan so we're not giving you a C.O. on a unit and we go down there and look at it is something else. We' ll use that site plan and probably work with that as we go on. Mr. Kogel: You would like to release these as units or as a building? Mr. Orlowski: As a building with all the landscaping around it. Not per unit. Mr. Kogel: Yes, we are prepared to do that. You will release it subject to approval of what we do do on that particular building, you will allow us to get a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued subject to the Building Department being satisfied. Mr. Orlowski: I think the big thing is access in and out best always be clear. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Ward: Also, any site construction that is going on we would want to have a say that you have a construction fence up because if you have people on the site we are going to want to see that there is protection for those people. Mr. Kogel: There is no question about that. We will do anything that you request. The only question that I have right now is that one home owner in particular, and I believe she has been calling the board, has a mortgage expiration date of June 15th, I believe when her mortgage commitment expires and do to the fact that the interest rates have greatly increased over the last eight months, I would like to know if we could schedule a meeting at the site at our earliest convenience so we can go over exactly what we are doing. Mr. Mullen: Why don' t you set it up for two weeks plus, then you will have a lot more done. Incidentally, as you go in there to the south side where you are putting in your pool and your tennis, you are going to have big equipment in there shortly digging a hole. We' re concerned about the safety situation too. We want to go into depth with you or the superintendent on the job to make sure we understand just what you are after and what you are going to do. Mr. Kogel: We don' t have to wait two weeks to set up a meeting to discuss safety precautions Mr. Mullen: Well, there will be some activity there and I would like to see some activity. That gives us a pretty good idea rather than speech. Mr. Orlowski: We will schedule it at one of our field inspections and get back to you and let you know. Mr. Kogel: It is just a matter of circling it on the site plan. Mr. Ward: We are not approving anything at this point. We want to see those four units and the immediate landscaping of those four units and possible the site access. We want to be very upfront with you that we are not approving the whole project. Just so we both understand each other. Mr. Kogel: O.K. , are there any other concerns? Ms. Elizabeth Schloss: I am the person who is desperately trying to get into the Cove. If you give me a minute or so I would like to describe my background to you. My husband passed away three years ago, and his family was out here since 1920, my father-in-law was Dr. Schloss who helped people in this town when he had difficulty raising their children because he was a very eminent pediatrician. Due to the fact that the house that I inherited from my husband was beyond my capacity to manage, I sold the property with the idea and looking forward to going into the Cove. I made my first payment to the Cove in October, PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 MAY 15, 1989 and I imposed upon my friends and neighbors to let me rent their homes during the winter when it is ordinarily not rented and their summer tenants arrive in June. Now, I am faced with a terrible situation because my mortgage commitment was given to me in February is going to run out in June. It is a mortgage for 50% of the cost of the property. I don't have to go into great detail about it. I appreciate what the Planning Board is doing and I travel a great deal because I work for Mattituck Travel and I'm interested in the beauty of Southold and I must tell you that many times when I am asked where my home is and I tell them Southold they say that that is a beautiful town and how do you keep things as nice as they are? I say it is not easy. However, I plead with you to consider my problem, the unit is completely finished it is just about in move in condition. The landscaping is not finished, but I spoke to Mr. Coffey this afternoon, and he assured me that one or two days work would put the landscaping in front of my unit and the cluster unit where my unit is and it will be in acceptable condition. As I see it that is the way things are right now. Actually, this is going to be a lovely and beautiful area that everybody will be proud of. So I plead with you to possibly reconsider and make your inspections slightly earlier so I can get out of Mr. Meyers house and retain him as a friend and retain my mortgage commitment. Mr. Mullen: What is your unit number? Ms. Schloss: 8A. Mr. Ward: If you could appraise us as soon as that work is done then we will make arrangements. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. nothing left on my agenda. Mr. Pontino: My nephew got a letter from Edson and Bruer about the lot he wants to build on next to me, now exactly what do you want? I was formerly half owner in that land. I deeded my half interest over to my brother when I built my house in 1977 and he deeded his half interest to me and I gave my half interest to the lot next to him in 1977 . I would like to know exactly what you want? Mr. Bennett Orlowski: We didn't get much information on that application and I know that property was subdivided a couple of years back. Mr. Pontino: It wasn't subdivided, all I did was sign off my half interest and my brother signed off his half interest to two adjoining one acre lots so I could build a house and he could do what he wanted with his acre. We both own that land we inherited in 1956. Mrs. Pontino: We don' t intend to do anything with the rest of the farm. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. Pontino: You got an acre out of your father' s farm to build a house. Mr. Orlowski: We don't have enough information. Mr. Pontino: I 've got all the surveys, all the deeds. What else do you need. Mrs. Pontino: You said something about the park land or something, show him the letter. Mr. Pontino: To survey the whole farm we got a price of something like $3,000, for what? Mr. Orlowski: We have to look at the whole thing. Mr. Pontino: This was cut out in 1977. Mr. Orlowski: Then it is a single and separate lot right now? Mr. Pontino: Yes. Mr. Orlowski: Then where is the survey? Mr. Pontino: This was done by Van Tuyl, this was my lot and I told him because this went up to the road so I told him when you cut this lot out for Joe, leave enough here in case we want to do something. Mr. Pontino: I don't see why we have to give two acres. This was done while the zoning was one acre. Mr. Orlowski: The zoning is two acres. Mr. Pontino: In 1977 it was one acre because we built a house on this lot, the end lot. There is no subdivision, all I did was sign off my half interest and then my brother signed off his. You're jerking this kid off for a year, since a year ago February. Mr. Orlowski: We have to look at it, we can' t do it right here. Mr. Pontino: There is no need for two acres, this was done in 1977 when it was one acre. Mrs. Pontino: I worked for a title company and the in there said that is perfectly legal, he drew the deeds. Mr. Orlowski: You have to present more information. Mr. & Mrs. Pontino: What do you want? Mr. Orlowski: Show us that is a single and separate lot. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 MAY 15, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Pontino: WE DID. Mr. Mullen: Did you get a letter from our office telling you what we needed? Mrs. Pontino: No. Ms. Spiro: You have the letter we sent you and we need more information. Mr. Mullen: Melissa, write them a letter and tell them specifically what you want, this is completely out of order what we are doing here now. Mrs. Pontino: Alright. Ms. Spiro: Call us and we will make an appointment for you. Mr. Orlowski: Does the board have any more questions? Mr. Orlowski: Hearing none. Mr. Otto Uhl Jr. : I came to talk about my homesite which abuts the Cove Beach Estates property on which you have an environmental statement. The report of the North Fork Environmental Council, and I don' t know if the Environmental Consultants Report backs them up. I must say that it is very disheartening to me, because at the moment, I don' t know what' s going to happen to me and my homesite there. I've had this homesite since November 3, 1970, that will be 19 years. I have waited all these years to be able to build my retirement home there, to sell my present home in Port Washington and move to East Marion, where my heart is. With Harold Reese coming so close to getting his beautiful subdivision plans approved, I felt sure this was the year for me to get going, to build my dream home there. But, what happened? Along comes the North Fork Environmental Council, they spent an hour or two looking over the property and report, and I quote from a write up in the Suffolk Times of February 9, 1989, that -the "area is a 'vital habitat' for plants and animals - perhaps critically important to three species of birds" and so on. I've known this property for thirty-three years, ever since Sweezy had it up for sale, in 1956. I 've walked the beach and the woods from end to end many times. Yes, it{s beautiful, the terrain, the sound the view; but I have not seen anything to get so excited about, about those plants and animals and birds. I can't relocate as easily as birds can. They just flap their wings and fly somewhere else to re-establish a new habitat. Nature is wonderful that way. Furthermore, I wonder where all this leaves me as an individual? The only access to my homesite is on the Cove Beach Estate Entrance Road, and that' s over 3/4 of a mile from the Main Road (Route 25) to Long Island Sound, where my homesite is. I have a right-of-way agreement with Cove Beach Estates and if that access is NOT in, "I 'm not in" . It is as simple as all PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 MAY 15, 1989 that . As an individual there is no way I can afford to put in this entrance road. It needs a developer like Harold Reese, and he can do it. Finally, I want you to know that my wife, Ella and I, have been Charter Members of the Southold/2000 organization since it was founded in September 1987. 1 mention this because I think, it points out that I like Nature and would like to keep it and the life-style we enjoy on the North Fork, but let' s do it within reason. Let' s not go overboard. I too, have a place here on this earth of our, besides the birds and the bees. Thank you for letting me make this verbal report. Mr. Orlowski: What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Mullen: I move that the meeting be closed. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Being no further business to come before the board, on motion made by Mr, Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 45 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, Jane Roussesu, Temporary Secretary Bennett Orlowski Jr. , C�ai/rman RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 7 DATE -1 le' ' HOUR 3 --5c?A op'0000,wwoo Town Clerk, Town" of Southold ..............