Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-06/05/1989 r Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1 1971 TELEPHONE (516)7 65-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JUKE 5, 1989 The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday, June 5, 1989 at 7 :30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. Present were: Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Member William Mullen Member G. Richie Latham Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro Planner Trainee Robert G. Kassner Temporary Secretary Jane Rousseau Absent: Member Richard Ward Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is the public hearing on the final map surveyed December 8, 1987. This lot line change is located on Sound View Avenue At Southold. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is in order for a final hearing. I ' ll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any 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 might be of interest to the board? Hearing none, are there any questions from the board? Board members: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: No further comment, I will declare this hearing closed. Everything is in order to approve and sign. (Chairman signed maps) . Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 JUNE 5, 1989 Mr. Orlowski: 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 #1000-18-4-1. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, June 19, 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. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Board to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of May 1, 1989, May 15, 1989 and August 30, 1988. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed minutes) Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business at 7 :45 p.m. - Frank & M rtle Hendrickson - Public hearing on the final map dated December 2, 1988. This lot line change is on 95,756 sq. ft. located at Southold. SCTM #p1000-70-4-44 & 45. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and proof of publication in the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing and I will ask PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 JUNE 5, 1989 r � if there are any objections to this lot line change? Hearing none, are there any endorsements? Mr. John Wagner: On behalf of the applicant of Esseks, Esseks, and Angel. I will endorse this lot line change. Mr. Orlowski: Any other endorsements? Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman, could I request one thing of the applicant? Do you have a copy of the property deed of the lot? The board would like to have it for their records. Mr. John Wagner: Yes. These are our file copies that we have. Ms. Scopaz: Thank you. Mr. John Wagner: Now these are deeds into Hendrickson and the deed that I believe we are discussing is a deed that will come from Cramer for the westerly portion of the central lot and it will be over to the adjoining owners on the west. That will effect the lot change and that deed will contain a covenants provide that the property transfer will merge with the westerly property. Mr. Orlowski: Is anyone out there neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that may be of interest to the board? Hearing none, any questions from the board? Board Members: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , I will declare this hearing closed. Being it is a lot line change and everything is in order would the board like to act on this tonight? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution: BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Planning Board moves to grant conditional final approval of the lot line change application of Frank and Myrtle Hendrickson subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: The new deed for the westerly part of Lot #1000-070-04-44 shall be deeded out to the current owner of Lot #1000-070-040-43 with the following restrictions: This parcel shall not be improved by a single family residence, and, further , shall be considered merged with Lot #1000-070-040-43 . Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 JUNE 5 , 1989 Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SUBDIVISIONS: Final: Mr. Orlowski: George H. Waterman III - Board to review the motion authorizing the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated June 2, 1988. This lot line change located on Fishers Island was approved on July 25, 1988 subject to review of the Suffolk County Planning Commission comments. SCTM #1000-2-1-2.3 . Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, seeing that all the conditions have finally been met, I make a motion that the Chairman endorse the maps. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps) . Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Thomas Shalve - Board to set Monday, June 19, 1989 at 8: 00 p.m. for a public hearing on the final maps dated January 2, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 5. 912- acres located at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-84-4-11. 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. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Preliminary: None Sketch: Mr. Orlowski: Henry Rutowski - Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. Board to make a determination on the sketch map PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 JUNE 5, 1989 dated April 24, 1989 . This minor subdivision is on 4.7959 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-108-1-2. Mr. Latham: I would like to offer the following resolution: MOTION to approve the sketch plan dated April 24, 1989 subject to the following: - the curb cut to be used for the common driveway on to Wickham Avenue must be 20 feet in width. This revision is to be shown on the final plan; - a covenant and restriction shall be placed on the lots stating that there shall be no structures within 50 feet of Middle Road (C.R. 48) . This 50' area shall be planted as a buffer for screening purposes. Further, there shall be no driveways or other vehicular access from these lots to or from C.R. 48. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: I' ll entertain a motion to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. 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. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. SE RA DETERMINATIONS: Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act on the following: Peconic Homes - SCTM. #1000-121-2-7/1000-125-1-p/o 5. A. T. Holding - SCTM #1000-121-5-8,/1000-122-2-25 . w y PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 JUNE 5, 1989 Joseph Macari - SCTM #1000-121-4-9. Daniel Jacob - SCTM #1000-125-1-5. Douglas Miller - SCTM #1000-121-4-10. Mr. Orlowski: I ' ll make a motion that PURSUANT to part 617 of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Southold Town Planning Board assumes lead agency, and, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed actions described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared. The Proposed Actions are as follows: A. T. Holding Co. SCTM # 1000-121-5-18 1000-122-1-15 34 lots on 91 . 53 acres. Joseph Macari SCTM # 1000-121-4-9 17 lots on 63 .57 acres. Peconic Homes SCTM # 1000-121-3-7 1000-121-1-p/o 5 19 lots on 45.18 acres. Daniel Jacoby SCTM # 1000-125-1-5 2 lots on 10.58 acres. Douglas Miller SCTM # 1000-121-3-10.1 3 lots on 8. 2 acres SEQRA Status: Each of the individual actions around the Lake is, in effect, an unlisted action, but the cumulative effect is akin to a Type I action. Reasons Supporting This Determination: There are three major and two minor subdivision proposals which together encompass approximately 219 acres and 85 lots in the vicinity of Laurel Lake; and There should be consideration of the potential cumulative effect of the proposed development on the ecology of the area with regard to the overall impacts on groundwater quality, surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and public lands; and The Laurel Lake area has been under study as a special, groundwater protection area by the Long Island Regional Planning Board' s Special Groundwater Protection Area Advisory Council; and The stretch of Sound Avenue between Bergen Avenue to the west and Cox Neck Road to the east is the sole point of ingress and egress, and none of these subdivisions has additional access to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 JUNE 5 , 1989 other public roads. This stretch of road is a heavily traveled east-west corridor and also a curving road on hilly terrain. Its capacity to handle safely the additional volume of traffic from the projected development should be examined. Ken Edwards: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the motion before the board makes a determination? Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Raynor: On behalf of Peconic Homes, the Horton Brothers, in reviewing the DEIS which you are requesting, it states that 218 acres are involved in the overall area Laurel Lake. What is the yield? Mr. Orlowski: 85 lots. Mr. Raynor: 85 lots. What is the traffic count on the North Road and Sound Avenue record and the impact on those 85 lots would be that to determine a positive declaration. Is that what I am interpreting the board to say? Mr. Orlowski: Part of it, yes. Mr. Raynor: The board also states that the ground water is of a concern. On behalf of my applicant, the groundwater on his parcel has already been tested and been approved by the Department of Health Services. How that can have an effect with regard to a deterioration on that property by the board assuming that this should be a positive declaration, I can't really understand. If we are going to look at traffic, to go back to that for just a moment, I feel that it is incumbent that this board study the North side of Sound Avenue as well as the intersection, and not only the south side because they would have the same existing problems. I feel that the board in determining this a positive declaration is being arbitrary in a sense that it is not taking on both sides of Sound Avenue and if, in fact, it is the intent to study the traffic patterns, then those properties to the North should also be studied. Other than that I would ask the board to reconsider its resolution before a count. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Pete Danowski: On behalf of Mr. Macari and his subdivision. I certainly support the comments of Mr. Raynor. As you know we have made every attempt to try and be reasonable in trying to layout the subdivision. We have met with staff, we have read in recommendations, we revised the map time and time PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 JUNE 5 , 1989 again. You are well aware that I have been before you before and going over a little bit of history of this site, in fact site was issued a negative declaration with regard to twice as many lots some few years back. We certainly have tried to meet with your staff and your private consultants. We have gone to the extent of hiring Doctor Richard Jackson who has prepared a preliminary report which was submitted to your board in hopes of delaying any concerns. We have also listened to the direction of access points and can only provide what we have. I 'm not sure the status of some of the subdivisions, such as A.T. Holding, how active or non-active it is. Obviously, they originally filed an application, but having charted their recent progress they have been following through on that application. In any case, we would object to the positive declaration. We feel, as Mr. Raynor has indicated, we have proof of quality water, we've got those wells sampled and reviewed by the Health Department and it meets the Health Departments standards and I will want to provide that further information to this board. To choose one side of the road and not the other., I think is unfair but I certainly do not want to penalize the other side of the road if it is not required to go through a positive declaration. To issue a type I does not necessarily mean that we have to prepare a DEIS. If we' ve got more that fifty units, if that is the concern, then sure cumulatively say we have more than fifty. We alone don' t have more than fifty housing units proposed to be developed. We tried to provide the open space where you people wanted them as far as staff was concerned. We try and cooperate anyway we can to relieve neighboring sites. We've tied our access points together to lead in both directions to the east. I believe Mrs. Kujawski has a lot to try to access, we would lead with Peconic Homes to jointly access out to Sound Avenue. We've done everything reasonable that can be done with that site. The site is not going to change. After a years worth of applications and reviews and revisions, to now say to us "let' s begin a laborious procedure" going through a process by which you have most of the information supplied to you I believe is unfair. The client is only going to lead to litigation. In closing, if you are going to continue with this positive declaration, I just have an inquire as to when you intend or if you can let us know when you wish to scope this to limit the DEIS and the issues to be raised herein. I have this rational of thinking here that all we are trying to do is delay these projects with some long winded hope that somehow the county or someone is going to come over and take out this property with some long ranged goal of future land or water resource can table. We wish to build, we have a right to build under existing zoning. We certainly have the right to direct this many ways about the layouts. We would be more that happy to meet with you and follow your advice, but I think all this is going to lead to is delay and its just driving up the cost of development. So I object to the positive declaration. Mr. Douglas Miller: We've submitted our sequel letter in 1984, this is the first time that anyone has mentioned anything in PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 JUNE 5 , 1989 about five years. We were called at 4: 00 and it was said it would be on tonight' s agenda. This represents to me a rocketing and unjust, unfair and illegal act on your part and totally irresponsible. You have been persisting to deny us legal rights to use the land consisting of time laws and you have acted knowingly and unlawfully. Mr. Lessard advised you that regarding the wetlands not being counted in total acreage was unlawful and you refused to acknowledge our concerns in that regard. We do have a SEQRA determination from the DEC which was a negative environmental impact. I feel that your actions are not consistent with good government and are somewhat going against the principals of democracy. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments? I have a motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. No: Mr. Mullen: Mr. Orlowski: So moved. Mr. Mullen reneged. Mr. Latham: I would like to make a comment on this. Mr. Raynor had a point about the North side of the road. Mr. Orlowski: Well, the North side was in before most of this and we have negotiated another access out on to a back road onto Bergen Avenue so I think the traffic will be handled there. Mr. Mullen: I have a question if I may. The last gentlemen that appeared, did you say sir that the first time that you knew about this meeting was tonight? Mr. Douglas Miller: We were called at 4:00 this afternoon. Mr. Mullen: Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: August Acres - Board to review the positive declaration which was issued on August 15, 1988. This major subdivision is on 43.062 acres located at Greenport. SCTM #1000-53-4-44.2. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman I would like to offer the following resolution: WHEREAS, a determination of a Positive Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was made by the Planning Board on August 15, 1988 for the application of August Acres; and WHEREAS, the application received preliminary approval prior to the time at which SEQRA was in effect; and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 JUNE 5, 1989 s n WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has advised the Planning Board that the final application of August Acres is not subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act; be it therefore, RESOLVED that the Planning Board rescind the Positive Declaration of August 15, 1988. Mr. Mullen: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Raynor: In view of the board' s resolution, may I request that a date be set for a final hearing. This subdivision has been around since 1975. I still have to go back now, as a result of been waiting since February to get a determination here to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to get the maps reaffirmed. If I can get a date from the board, in the next four to six weeks for a final public hearing , at least we would know whether we were drifting for the last fourteen years. Mr. Mullen: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Raynor. You mentioned 1975? Mr. Raynor: That was the original date of submission. Mr. Mullen: Do you feel that the board has been holding this up for 14 years? Mr. Raynor: No not for 14 years, but I feel that certainly within the last two years there has been a lot of problems of communications with this board. Mr. Mullen: I would appreciate it if you would give us a breakdown of that. Mr. Raynor: I will be happy to give you a copy of all the information we have sent to the board in the last two years. Mr. Mullen: Thank you. Mr. Raynor: I would again request if we could set this for a public hearing, it would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Raynor, do you feel you have everything in order for the meeting five weeks from now?. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 JUNE 5, 1989 Mr. Raynor: Presently it seems to be the procedure with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services that takes about a ten to fourteen day turn-a-round in order to get the maps updated as long as there are no substantial changes. In this instance there are no changes. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Orlowski, I would just like to bring something to the Planning Board' s attention. This particular subdivision had received final approval by the Planning Board in 1975 or there abouts. However, the applicant failed to file the map with the County. He lost his approval for failure to meet certain conditions. What we are trying to do now is request the final application again. The applicant has been sent a letter, you probably haven't gotten it today. You will probably get it in tomorrow' s mail whereby apparently there was a conversation between your client' s attorney and the Town attorney and correspondence was sent back and forth between them which was not known to the Planning Board and in that letter it specifies that your client' s attorney was directed to go to the Trustees. If you have any questions on the letter, call and we can clarify that but evidentially, now that the positive declaration has been rescinded you have to go to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Raynor: There are three items I would like to address. Number one, I do not have final approval, I have preliminary approval and number two, I have a letter in my file dated March 18th of this year addressing the Trustees which you should have a copy, requesting that if they have any jurisdiction what so ever in this matter to please call us immediately. Number three you can see what I mean by communications. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Orlowski: Is everything in order right now to set this for a final hearing. Ms. Scopaz: The correspondence that the Town Attorney had with the client' s attorney was that the Planning Board could not proceed until they had received a permit from the Trustees for permission to have activity within 75 feet of the wetlands. Evidentially, this conversation was had last fall. There is a copy in the file, a letter, that was written from the Town Attorney in January of 1989 to Mr. Stern, who is the attorney for the client, directing him that he has to go to the Trustees. I have spoken with the president of the Trustees and he said there has been no contact. It seems to me that that would be the first thing to do. If the Board of Trustees, upon receipt of an application say, we have no jurisdiction or response to that application then the Planning Board is free to proceed and set a hearing date. Until that time, you can set a hearing date and hope that the Trustees get back to you in time if you want to do that. I would suggest since this was correspondence between one attorney and another that that be followed. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 JUNE 5 , 1989 o Mr. Orlowski: Do you know anything about that application to the Trustees? Mr. Raynor: The last piece of communication I have is what I sited to you in March, it was on the 18th of that month where we again, this was to the Trustees, we were referred to by the Planning Board at that time under discussion. The Town Attorney also requested, please advise for permit or permit process required from your board. Mr. Orlowski: You never got an answer? Mr. Raynor: I have no response at all. The letter which is referenced between the Town Attorney for the Town Planners, April 1, 1988 and it submits that it has approved the preliminary and we are waiting cannot revoke the final until such time as this board makes the determination. That was the first question that came up. I would feel if within 90 days we can' t get a response from the Trustees or your department can certainly cannot get a response from the Trustees, that there is either no jurisdiction or no interest. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. What is the pleasure of the board? Do you want to set this for a hearing or wait until you hear from the Trustee' s? Mr. Mullen: Well we've waited fourteen years, another month won' t hurt. Mr. Raynor: The only comment I can make is that the confusion that reigns here is the fact that there is a culvert that exists under a town road and how it is to be as of today feel that the applicant put it in which review the file you will find that it is not the case. It was put in by the Town of Southold. The Town of Southold then instructed the applicant to go further and connect their recharge basin to the existing culvert that falls under the road. That' s who we' re coming up with the jurisdiction of the Trustees. Mr. Orlowski: Do you think in the next two weeks you will answer that question of the Trustees? Mr. Raynor: I have been answering the question since March 18th, I will try. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. . Mr. Orlowski: Fishers Island Utility - Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. Board to make a determination on the sketch map dated February 15, 1989. This minor subdivision is on 2.53 acres located at Fishers Island. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 JUNE 5 , 1989 SCTM 31000-6-6-2. Everything is in order for sketch approval. Mr. Edwards: I move for sketch approval. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Did you want to put a condition on that Mr. Edwards? Mr. Edwards: Yes, the only condition that I would like to see is that the access to these lots come out on Central Avenue. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Motion to start the coordination process? 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. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. . Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Lorraine Terry - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 12. 823 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-18-5-18.1 . Everything is in order for a negative declaration. 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. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Garrett Ma11er - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This minor subdivision is on 12 .823 acres located at Orient. SCTM #1000-118-1-16,17,18.1. Everything is in order for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ************ Mr. Orlowski: Sunbeau Associated - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the proposed amendment to the previously approved map of July 27, 1988. Board to set Monday, June 19, 1989 at 7 : 30 p.m. for a public hearing on the amended map dated March 1, 1989 . This subdivision is on 30. 637 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-100-2-5.1. At this time everything is in order to do an uncoordinated review. Planning should take lead agency, and as lead agency make a determination of a Negative Declaration. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to take lead agency. Make a determination of a Negative Declaration. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Everything is in order to set a public hearing on the amended map. Mr. Edwards: I make a motion that we set a public hearing on June 19, 1989. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 JUNE 5 , 1989 o x Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Russell Weiss - This is an adjoining parcel and what is happening is that the ten acres is being bought by Mr.. Weiss and this one piece of property, this lot is being merged, one is setting off one to give to another and the board is to make a determination on the State Environmental Quality Review Act to propose amendment which previously includes the map of April 12, 1985 and also the Board will set Monday, June 19th at 7: 45 p.m. for a public hearing on the amendment of amended map dated May 11, 1989. This subdivision is 5.263 acres located at Mattituck. Mr. Latham: I move for a Negative Determination and also to set the hearing. Mr. Orlowski: To take lead agency? Mr. Latham: Yes, and to take lead agency. Mr. Orlowski: I' ll entertain a motion to take lead agency and for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr . Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Also to set the hearing. Mr. Edwards: I move we set the hearing for June 19th. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. REPORTS AND BONDS• Mr. Orlowski: Golf View - Board to review the bond for this major subdivision located at East Marion. SCTM #1000-35-2-p/ol6. Everyone has inspected it, the Planning Board, the Engineers, Mr. Jacobs. All is in order to release the bond. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 JUNE 5, 1989 Mr. Mullen: I have one comment Mr. Chairman, I have a memo here maybe you have a later one, this one is from March 28, 1989 that the seeding had not terminated at the time. I don' t know whether it has since. Mr. Latham: Well I recall that it has germinated so much that it is really high now. Mr. Orlowski: What is the recommendation to the Town Board? Mr. Latham: That we release the bond. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View Realty - Board to review the engineer' s report dated ed May 2, 1989. This major subdivision is on 49.140 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #p1000-115-17-17. What is the pleasure on the report? Mr. Edwards: Move that we accept and request compliance Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Mr. Mullen: You request in compliance with the report of May 4th? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. 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. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: The applicant has a letter requesting a reduction in his irrevocable letter of credit, but we have a letter from Union Savings Bank here serving us notification that there irrevocable letter of credit which will expire June 20th, 1989 will not be further extended and will be null and void as of that date. In the letter they say that most of the work is completed and they also stated that additionally we have been advised by our contractor that the Highway Superintendent has PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 JUNE 5 , 1989 suggested that the final coat of asphalt not be installed until spring of 1990. I called Mr. Jacobs this afternoon, he has no idea who said that. I don't think at this time we should get into decreasing the irrevocable letter of credit but we best find out if we are going to get another one. Does this board have any other comments on that? Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Mr. Mullen: It might be a thought to have our engineer go out and check what is left of the dollar value and we should take into consideration further that they will obviously not do it this year. Mr. Orlowski: If we don' t have that letter of credit. Mr. Mullen: You' re dead. Mr. Orlowski: We do have some construction going on there now. Mr. Latham: When does the letter of credit expire? Mr. Mullen: June 20th I believe. Ms. Scopaz: We have not received anything in writing from the health department as to where the water facilities are whether they are acceptable or not. We haven' t received anything. I would suggest that there also be some kind of written confirmation from the Suffolk County Department of Health that everything is going as planned. Mr. Mullen: What is the original value of credit? Mr. Orlowski: Well the bond estimate is $1,150,000. Mr. Mullen: Our attorney on June 2, requested a reduction of the bond to $200,000. The only thing that was silent was the time element. I think we ought to get something out to them immediately. Mr. Orlowski: We' ll send the engineers out to see what it should be. The letter of credit was for $1,150, 000. Mr. Mullen: So he should have no problem putting up a half a million. Mr. Latham: I'm not in favor of these piece meal reductions of bonds. We've always done them but its not a good practice. This is a large subdivision. Mr. Orlowski: I think also the water system itself we don' t know where it sits. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Mullen: The other thing that disturbs me is the fact that the highway superintendent was not familiar with the comments of council. Mr. Orlowski: We' ll check into that further. As of right now we know by our next meeting we want another letter of credit. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Thorton Smith - Board to review the engineer' s report dated May 2, 1989. This major subdivision is on 88.0980 acres located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-121-1-1,p/ol9. Mr. Ken Obustso - I'm from Young and Young Surveyors. I don' t believe we received a copy of that letter. If it is at all possible may I have a copy? Mr. Orlowski: You can have mine. What is the pleasure on this report? Does the board have any comments? Mr. Mullen: I would like to request compliance of the report of Sidney Bowne dated May 2, 1989. Mr. Latham: I have a motion pertaining to that report. I make a motion to adopt the following from the engineer' s report dated May 2, 1989: Number 1-3 as stated in report. Number 4 - The Planning Board is not requiring Number 4 as stated in the report. The Planning Board is requiring that an emergency access road along the northerly property boundary, with direct access to Bergen Avenue, be maintained. it is not necessary that this road be paved, however, it must be cleared and maintained so as to function as an emergency access. Number 5 - A meeting will be set up between the Planning Board and the Engineer. The applicant will be notified of any necessary revisions. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Mr. Ken Obutso: Mr. Chairman, could you tell me what you mean an emergency access road. When you say it doesn' t have to be paved, what do you mean by a road? It' s not cultivated or in someways that fire trucks can get across there, but not construct anything, just leave an easement across there. Is that correct? Mr. Latham: Yes, not paved but ------ Mr. Obutso: Leave a 50 ft. easement so that there will be no cultivation or obstruction. No trees or branches. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: That would be to leave as a third access where as in the future we would like to ------- Mr. Obutso: Your asking for the dedication of 12 feet along Sound Avenue. A lot of these things I cannot answer without sitting down with the Planning Board. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: The Woods at Cutcho e - Board to review the road specifications for this approved major subdivision located on Depot Lane at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-102-1-4. The applicant has requested in writing to begin construction under the new highway specifications which are 24 feet in width. We have approved these specifications and the road committee has but the Town Board has yet to vote on it. I believe the Town Board may be voting on these tomorrow. If it is on the agenda I don' t believe there is any problem of us recommending to them to go ahead. I realize the Town Board has to vote on it first. We cannot make that recommendation to go ahead. Mr, Fishetti: The question I have is that we were in the middle of construction (inaudible) . Mr. Orlowski: Just so it has approval from us, we can make a motion subject to that change and the applicant can proceed with 24 feet. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. CHANGES OF ZONE: Mr. Orlowski: Jem Rea Co. - Applicant to present change of zone application to the Planning Board. The applicant proposes to change the zone from R-80 Residential Low-Density District to HD Hamlet Density Residential District. SCTM #1000-35-1-24. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 JUNE 5 , 1989 Marie Ongioni - For the applicant. This is an application for a change of zone from R-80 to the new code as allowed in the zoning code, hamlet density. It is a 62 acre parcel just outside the Village of Greenport. Currently it is zoned R-80 and as I say we' re making an application to hamlet density. The usage under hamlet density would be compatible with the uses in the area immediately surrounding this particular parcel. Mr. Latham: Excuse me, you don' t have a survey do you. Marie Ongioni: I do have the zoning map. Mr. Latham: We have one, excuse me. Marie Ongioni: It does show what the surrounding parcels are, it shows the zone designation for this landing parcels and it also shows the current usages, the sizes of the parcels and as the board can see the parcels are high density to the west along Sound Drive. The parcel to the east of the subject parcel is zone hamlet density at this time. The parcels contiguous to the parcel are limited business and the parcels to the south on the south side of Route 48 are high density and also limited business. As the board can see, this parcel does fit within the parameters of the hamlet density designation as it is defined in the code. Specifically, the code requires that any parcel to be rezoned be within one-half mile of the hamlet business districts, this is within one-half mile of the Village of Greenport so it does fit that criteria. The applicant proposes to provide moderate priced housing as shown in the environmental assessment form that has been filed with the board. Mr. Orlowski: What is moderate priced? Marie Ongioni: Well, the prices have not yet been determined, however, it will be moderate housing as in accordance with the intent and purpose of the zoning code and specifically the hamlet density designation. This is within close proximity of the Village of Greenport. It is within close proximity of very high density areas. The lots generally run 10,000 square feet and less. The parcels that are not residential in use are business in use and the proposed zone change for this particular parcel will be compatible with those land uses and will in essence foster the purpose of the zoning code in adopting a hamlet density designation. The environmental assessment form provides for four housing units per acre. Of course this would not be equally divided throughout the sixty two acres, it would be cluster type of housing with large open spaces. Mr. Orlowski: We are going to have 248 units. Marie Ongioni: That is correct. Mr. Orlowski: You know there are 350 next to you that have not been built or sold yet. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 JUNE 5 , 1989 Marie Ongioni: They are in the planning stage at this point. Mr. Orlowski: I think in due respect to all proper planning to go along with a change of zone at this time to high density since we just finished adopting the Master Plan in making this R-80, I personally don't think we should be making a recommendation to change this to hamlet density. I don' t know if the board has any feelings or comments. Mr. Mullen: Is this going to be all affordable housing? Marie Ongioni: Not necessarily affordable housing, but it will be moderately priced housing. Mr. Mullen: You didn' t answer my question. Marie Ongioni: It will be affordable, it will be geared to young people and older people and those who are unfortunately prohibited from purchasing in R-80 zone designations because of the cost. Also, the R-80, in this particular location is not really a proper use for this land because all the other parcels are so small in size that R-80 in this particular location, in fact, is out of character with the vicinity. I have also a copy of the zoning code. Mr. Latham: Didn' t we go over this a few years ago with Mr. Konokosta? We had some deal where there we put everything down on the Sound and we left everything else open. That is what I liked at that time. Marie Ongioni: I understand that the Planning Board did approve or recommend approval of that plan, that zone change application. Mr. Latham: That was never passed. Marie Ongioni: No, it was not passed. I understand it received the Planning Board' s recommendation. That zoning change has since been withdrawn. Mr. Mullen: I still have two questions. Number one, is it going to be all affordable? Number two, what is affordable? Some people can afford a million dollars, now I believe our situation right now is around $75,000 or $80,000. My question is, do you anticipate coming in at that ball park figure? Yes or No. Marie Ongioni: I am not in a position to answer your question yes or no right now. However, we would be willing to define the criteria for what moderate housing would be if the board were so inclined. If the board felt that that was a critical element in its decision regarding this application. Mr. Mullen: Well, it is right now and it' s in the code too. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 JUNE 5 , 1989 Marie Ongioni: This does not fall under the affordable housing district. We are not applying under that zone designation, instead we're applying under hamlet density which is a separate designation but the reason the master plan provided for the flexibility, in hamlet density, was to allow specific parcels within close proximity of major business districts to be developed in accordance with those central business districts and also to provide housing for those people who are employed in the central business district and alike and for that reason this parcel is compatible with the intended hooks as it was proposed and adopted by the Town Board. Mr. Orlowski: I believe at this time, as I said before, I don' t think it is proper to go ahead and change the zone to higher density. We have Breakers next door which is 350 units, they are having a water problem and a sewer problem right now which will probably hold them up for I don' t know how long. We have another project down the street from it with 100 units of affordable housing, half of those and semi-affordable the other half and that has not yet received approval. Approval from Greenport or approval from us. I think that we would like to wait and see what happens with these projects and to see what is needed and if that density is really called for. When we put the master plan together we didn' t think we needed it and I still don't think we need it.. Right now, my opinion is, to make the recommendation to the Town Board that they deny this change of zone. Mr. Latham: I think we went over this in the Master Plan and we figured out we didn' t need this and I think they were right. Mr. Mullen: I concur also Mr. Chairman. Marie Ongioni: What I would like to point out is that while this parcel was not zoned as such in the adopted stages the fact that the code now allows for the Town Board to have this flexibility shows there is a need for rezoning in certain instances. Mr. Orlowski: It could be in the next 50 to 100 years. Marie Ongioni: Not necessarily in the next 50 to 100 years because the zoning code as it stands today may not be in its current form 50 to 100 years from now. It is a need and this parcel would fill the need that the Town Board apparently identified in the decision making process. Mr. Edwards: I think the timing is off here with the Master Plan being so new with what is around it and I would be inclined to say not to approve it at this time. Mr. Orlowski: So we don' t hold you up we will make a motion tonight and send the Town Board our feelings. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 JUNE 5, 1989 Marie Ongioni: If I may, I would like to request you hold up on that until the Town consultant has reviewed the environmental assessment form that has been submitted and has made its own recommendation rather than deciding this evening. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Mullen: We have been subjected to comments that we have dragged our feet and held up a situation and therefore and I am trying to, and I believe the other members and the staff are trying to move things along, which down the line I think will be most helpful to you. There are many, many questions that haven' t been responded to as far as I am concerned. I second the motion. Marie Ongioni: Are they questions I have not responded to? Mr. Mullen: To the Town Board and I have many more. Marie Ongioni: If there are any questions that you would like to propose to me. Mr. Mullen: Not right now, what I feel right now without hesitation is to deny this request. This is my own personal feeling. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else? Does anyone want to hold it up or vote on it? Mr. Latham: I vote to forward the letter that goes to the Town Board. Mr. Orlowski: I think you can see we are adamantly against this. Marie Ongioni: Frankly, I don' t see why because this is specifically permitted in the zoning code. Mr. Orlowski: I ' ll entertain a motion to send that letter to the Town Board. 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. Edwards, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Emanual Konokosta - Applicant to present change of zone application to the Planning Board. The applicant proposes to change the zone from R-80 Residential Law-Density District to HD Hamlet Density Residential District SCTM #1000-55-5-17 . Mr. Orlowski: This too is across from a AHD zone which is in the process of being approved and they have a lot of questions to answer there and I have the exact same feelings on this one. Marie Ongioni: Here to the parcel is centrally located to much smaller lots than those required in a R-80 zone. It is a mixed use area, there is a mix of business and residential, there is a mix of condominium' s and one family houses. It is a very high density area. A R-80 zone designation is not the proper designation in this particular location, it is not the best use for the property. A much better use would be that which provides additional moderately priced housing for the Village of Southold. It is within one-half mile of the hamlet district of Southold. It fits the criteria of the hamlet density designation which the Town Board apparently saw a need for in its adopting and I have outlined in my application to the Town Board the specific zone designations for all the adjacent parcels and you will also see in the plan that you have in your file that there is a very, very land use in the surrounding areas of this parcel. Do you have a copy of that sketch? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Marie Ongioni: You will see numerous high density lots along the North Road, Boisseau Avenue, Railroad Avenue and Humel Avenue. Mr. Mullen: What is the total acreage? Marie Ongioni: This acreage is 32 acres. The applicant proposes to leave 25 acres as open space and the remaining acreage will be improved with four individual buildings each containing four units for a total of 128 units. There will be a sewage treatment facility. Plans are being worked out with the Village of Greenport for water. The same applies to the other parcel. Mr. Orlowski: As I stated before, we just adopted the Master Plan and this was proposed as R-80 for right now and the Town Board just initiated AHD zoned to the west of it proceeding with that high density. I think we would like to go with one at a time. Basically, I can't see coming in and changing all of these to the high density. Mr. Latham: I agree but one of our members is not here and he might have some comments. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Mullen: Well, even if he voted for it, I believe it is four to one. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Ward' s only comment, and he is not with us tonight, was that he is in favor of the high density based on two acre zoning the R-80. On sixteen acres he will give you the eight units all in one corner if you want them. That was his comment. Leave the rest in open space. As far as density itself and going along with the change of zone, Mr. Ward is not in favor of it. Also, on the other application he was keeping the zoning in cluster. Marie Ongioni: I would like to bring a couple of points to your attention. This was part of the draft environmental impact statement that was prepared in February 1988. It refers to the hamlet density zone and it' s referring to the need for hamlet density areas and it states that a plan was developed for each of the town hamlet areas, each hamlet plan was designed to number one maintain the hamlet as a community focal point and activity center. Two - Strengthen the existing the retail and service commercial use within the hamlet centers. Three- provide adequate parking for commercial and public uses. Four - Provide for a range of housing for younger and older residents with a range of income levels within the hamlet acres with higher density near the center and lower density in the outlying areas. The base density of one unit per acre was shown on the hamlet maps in the range of possible densities would be limited by the availability of utilities and so on. Basically, the purpose of the hamlet density designation was to provide for a natural growth of a hamlet business district. Mr. Orlowski: In the future. Marie Ongioni: Well, the future is now. The future is not two, three, or four years from now. Mr. Orlowski: Well, then we may need it but right now we don't. Marie Ongioni: Well, it is within the board' s discretion to decide. Mr. Mullen: I would like to make a motion now to deny the request of the applicant and to advise the Town Board. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 JUNE 5, 1989 SITE PLANS: Mr. Orlowski: Goose Island Corporation - Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This site plan is located on Central Avenue at Fishers Island. SCTM #1000-10-1-8.1. 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. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: George Penny - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Board to make a determination on the final map dated June 2, 1989. This site plan is located on Main Road at Greenport SCTM #1000-53-2-25.1. Everything is in order to do an uncoordinated review. The Planning Board as Lead Agency should make a determination of non-significance. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr.Latham: Second Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: The Building Department has certified the plan as dated. What is the pleasure of the board on the final maps? 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. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman signed maps) PLANNING BOARD PAGE 27 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: Southold free Library - Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This site plan is located on the Main Road at Southold. SCTM #1000-61-1-14. Mr. Orlowski: Everything is in order for a negative determination. 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. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Cove at Southold - Board to review making a recommendation to the Building Department in regard to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the building containing units 5,6,7 & 8. This site plan is located on Bayview Road at Southold SCTM #1000-87-1-20. It has been inspected. The only thing is the proposed approved layout of a site plan is not exactly what we have been looking for. This could have been done on a napkin in a restaurant. Mr. Barto Tamilio: I didn' t have much time. I didn' t know if you wanted the four units or one unit at a time. Mr. Orlowski: We would like to see the site plan itself that was approved and signed with this section out of it and stamped and then we will endorse it. We could make a motion now to approve it subject to receiving that which we already asked for. Mr. Mullen: We only checked number 8. Mr. Orlowski: It' s a unit. Mr. Mullen: We told them specifically, not once, but four times that it was only building number $. Ms. Spiro: This is just for one, unit number 8 in building number 8. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Ms. Spiro: I was told it was unit number 8. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 28 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Orlowski: I ' ll entertain a motion to approve it subject to receiving the section of the site plan which we are approving. Which is building number 8 . Mr. Latham: We inspected and approved building number 8. Mr. Orlowski: I 'm not sure when I said building number 8 what it was, unit number 8 is in it. It' s building number 2. Mr. Orlowski: As it is deleted here in the site plan is how we would like to see it before we approve it and it has to be all finished. Mr. Tamilio: All four units have to be finished. Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Latham: Melissa, after the meeting would you show the gentlemen just what you are looking for? Mr. Tamilio: We would like to have one unit approved so the lady can move in. Mr. Mullen: We went there to check out building 8A because the person had a problem with the bank. We went there and we told the gentlemen fine this is good and we told him not once but four times 8A. They were still working in the other area. As a matter of fact, while we were there they had just seeded it. We were very explicit to make them understand. We told them further, as the others come forth we will come down and check them out for you. Right now, when we were there anyway, that was the only one we were interested in because of the problem. Mr. Tamilio: Unit 8 is fine. Mr. Mullen: Yes. Mr. Latham: Can you get a sketch plan? Talk to our office and see what they want exactly? Mr. Orlowski: Tonight we are doing unit number 8. From now on we are going to do all four together and if they are not all done at once then don' t even come in. Mr. Mullen: It was a hardship situation that is why we went down when we did. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 29 JUNE 5, 1989 rt Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: The Church of the Open Door - Board to review making a recommendation to the Building Department in regard to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. This site plan is located on Main Bayview Road at Southold. SCTM #1000-106-9-6.1. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Everything is in order. This will be subject to a one year review. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Bill Moore: Can I speak to you about High Point subdivision. Mr. Orlowski: If it is not on the agenda, we are not going over it. Mr. Joseph Macari: Is it at all possible that what ever changes are asked for we can incorporate it into the final map? Mr. Orlowski: It has to go to the County first. Mr. Macari: I guess what I am saying is that when we do get a preliminary can we do that subject to making those changes in the final map instead of resubmitting any little changes on the preliminary to let us proceed with the final map and incorporate your changes into the final map rather than resubmitting the preliminary with some minor changes. I'm sure we have done that before. Mr. Orlowski: In this instance, I don' t think that would be a problem. Mr. George Penny: I have a question on my own behalf as far as the corporation for the site approval which I thank you for. I just want to talk to you about the time factor and the moving from the small congested piece of property that I'm on right now and on to the new site. At what point will I be allowed to use the new site? As you may well know, I am using the area that is going to be designated for employee parking is now loaded with PLANNING BOARD PAGE 30 JUNE 5 , 1989 lumber until I can move the lumber onto the new site I can' t approve the parking area. Is this going to be a situation where its going to be give and take on this? Or do I have to have the new site absolutely complete before I can move on to it. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Penny, I have seen lots of buildings go up that have been used after I sign the site plan I have nothing else to say. The Building Department will be enforcing that part of it. Mr. Penny: I am not putting up any buildings. It is strictly use of land at this point. Can I phase myself into this or do I have to have the new site 100% up to snuff and approved by the Planning Board before I can put one stick of lumber on it because actually it is a physical impossibility. That is what I am trying to address. Mr. Orlowski: I think with the lumber yard and the site plan the way it is that it is your land and you can put lumber on it anywhere you want. When it comes time for us to approve the final site plan that it be done the way the site plan is suppose to be done. Mr. Penny: At what period and time are we talking? I'm not looking to prolong it, I just don' t want somebody come down there and saying to me this is illegal use of the land and once again it a campaign thing. I don' t want to appear on the front page. Mr. Orlowski: I think you can put your lumber anywhere you want on your property but don' t put it where the fence goes and don' t put it where the landscaping goes and don' t put where the driveway goes, I mean that has to be improved. Mr. Penny: So in reality its O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Does the board have anything to say? Mr. Latham: If he wants to move a some lumber out of the parking lot, then why not. Mr. Orlowski: To me it' s part of the building of the site so I don' t have any problem with that. If you want to put the lumber on the site it' s no problem. Mr. Latham: Don' t move it, sell it. Mr. Penny: The other thing is the resolution, number 28 which in on for tomorrow with the Town Board and I'm just a little bit confused. The one section A106 page 23 which is street design where you are basically asking for a change in the width of the road from 28 to 24 feet, I have no difficulty with that, but I have a problem understanding what is going on in A section 106-33C under major subdivisions. I read and reread the two PLANNING BOARD PAGE 31 JUNE 5 , 1989 sets of road specs that are in there and as you may be aware it says that a major subdivision where the lots may be serviced by a proposed street, there is no likelihood of the street servicing more than four lots. The Planning Board at its discretion may waive the major road specifications as they are set forth in Article A and Al or Article 3 and they placed or substitute alternative road specification as set forth in A-108-42B. I have read and reread those things and I don' t see any difference between them. Mr. Orlowski: The specs you mean? Mr. Penny: Yes, they seem to be, I mean if you go through them you start with the same base course, depth consists of three fourths stone blend. You go to the second one, base course three fourths inch stone blend. Mr. Orlowski: George, you are looking at the width. Is the width both the same in those? Mr. Penny: Is that the only difference? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Penny: What you are saying is the roads are the same. Mr. Orlowski: Yes. The widths are different. Mr. Penny: The widths you address under section A-106-33 Street Design. Mr. Orlowski.: Yes, but in the specs we changed the width of the road. Mr. Penny: To twenty- eight feet. Mr. Orlowski: Twenty- four and in the minors they put down to twenty and talking about going down even lower that that where one lot exists. Mr. Penny: What is the difference. If you could tell me the difference between the major subdivision road specs for major subdivisions of four lots or more. Ms. Scopaz: If I may clarify that. Four lots has the option of going down to twenty foot road width. Mr. Penny: So we are not addressing the finished type of the road we are only addressing the road width. So in other words the make up of the road is going to be exactly the same in both cases. Ms. Scopaz: Right, between a twenty- four and twenty eight foot, they are exactly the same except they are narrower. • PLANNING BOARD PAGE 32 JUNE 5 , 1989 Mr. Penny: Does this board really feel that it is necessary to maintain a road of that thickness, that depth? You seem to be willing the sacrifice the width of the road, why does it have to be the same depth specifications as the major subdivisions? Mr. Orlowski: Well, in the minor, number one, they are not going to have all the drainage that they are going to have in the major so that is going to cut it down. The road itself we are looking for construction to be a good construction. There are too many minor roads around here that we have talked about before that have just gotten us into trouble. I live on one of them, but we are allowing it to go down to twenty feet and we also have talked with the road committee the highway committee has talked and I 'm going down to where there is awareness just where there is just one or two lots and you are only servicing one lot in the back which will never be connected to anything else to go down to sixteen feet. We are also talking about maybe a different top course, maybe bluestone or something like that. For right now with the subdivisions going on we're keeping at least to twenty- eight feet. When I first got here it was thirty six foot of black top, period. Since then it has gone down to twenty-eight and now it' s going to be twenty-four. We want to initiate that right away because of the subdivisions that are going in because we don' t want all that road. As far as the minors, we want to see decent roads in the minors, but we have gone down in width from twenty- four to twenty. The one we are initiating now and we are still talking, we want this to be adopted right away for what is going on but we are still talking maybe even less where there is only one or two lots being serviced. Mr. Penny: Well, that is where the problem is arising. Mr. Orlowski: The Town Attorney advised us to go ahead with this right away and then change it after. Mr. Penny: You have always been an advocate of helping out the farm community and local people and yet I find that these minor roads specs as you well know and I was probably the only one that voted against the existing minor road specs that are in there now and I thought when I first read this that the board was making a move and being a little more benevolent to the local community, but I know there is a couple of long term farmer families in this town, living here right now that are frustrated by major road specifications when they want to carve out one lot on their land. one happens to be right now in Orient and the other happens to be in Mattituck. One of them is a fellow younger than me who would like to give his daughter a lot because she has been waiting for this affordable housing that never seems to happen in Southold Town and he would like to give her a lot and yet finds out he has got to file a full blown minor subdivision and at that time it was up to major subdivision specs. This is putting a hardship on a lot of local people. I would like to ask the board in its benevolence to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 33 JUNE 5, 1989 consider that there are extenuating circumstances here and not everybody is a developer. There are people who just want to carve out a lot so that there families can stay here and not spend $70,000 to $100,000 putting in roads to do it. Mr. Orlowski: Let me just say this, that I know I wish we could write the law for everybody differently as they walk through the door, but it is not meant to be. Our government is not made that way. Mr. Penny: It is called discretion and yes it is when we give you the discretion to drop to a lower set of standards we can give you the discretion to drop to an even lower set of standards under extenuating circumstances. Mr. Orlowski: Have you given us that discretion? Mr. Penny: You have the discretion. All you have to do is make the recommendation to us. I'm sure we would give it to you. You had the discretion before you came in with these. Mr. Orlowski: Let me just say this, I bought a lot in a minor subdivision with the old specifications which was basically nothing. I thought it was affordable at the time but when I moved in and had to make $10,000 worth of improvements immediately, it hurt me and I don' t want to see that happen. I don't want to see some young kid move in here and the developer just put in four lots with no road and as soon as the cement truck goes through and does the foundation, he has got to go put a road in. How do I do that discretionarily? I don' t know how. Mr. Penny: Well, unless this town starts to use some discretion, nobody will have the same property you have because the young people won' t be able to live here. Mr. Orlowski: I think, believe it or not, in the long run, the young person has got to be much better off for it. If they find themselves stuck with a fire truck or an ambulance stuck in their driveway with somebody in it dying or their house burning down. Mr. Penny: I don' t think we have had that yet. Mr. Orlowski: Well, no. But do you want to be responsible for the first one? Mr. Penny: I think you are getting carried away. Mr. Latham: Well George, let me say something just to interrupt this. You mentioned the thickness of the road is the same, the depth, I feel myself that the garbage trucks, the oil trucks and the trucks seem to be getting larger and when they come in, never mind the construction, just ordinary use, it is hard on the road and I think that extra depth is good on a minor road. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 34 JUNE 5 , 1989 One lot or two lot is something else, but on a four lot minor I feel that it is not too bad. over a period of ten or twenty years, I think it is going to be the right thing. Mr. Penny: Well, without prolonging the discussion or going on all night about it, I am sure that you are well aware and everybody here is well aware that there are plenty of roads in this town that are nothing more than packed gravel and they really don' t seem to have that problem with losing fire trucks, etc. etc. . Any road in any condition or made out of any substance can be properly maintained. What has happened in the last few years is that a bunch of people have gone in and put in probably a very light stone on top of sand or something else and somebody like me comes along and he buys a lot and of course he has some problems with it but that doesn' t mean that should set a standard for Southold Town based upon his one experience, I know there are plenty of communities around here that have lot longer roads probably 500 to 900 feet long which is nothing more than packed sand, dirt and gravel. Believe you me, we don' t have the difficulty of pulling out any service vehicles or emergency vehicles or anything else and that is probably the majority of the roads in Southold Town and are below the standards established in these specs. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think that the Code Committee and the Highway Committee is the place to bring this up and if you can show me a set of specs that is less expensive to develop or put in and that for one or two lots it will benefit. some young people around here, I think you should bring it up and we will talk about it. Right now, I think to be fair to everybody, and we have come a long way, we brought the majors down and we have brought the minors up a little bit, but at lot values to $80,000 to $100,000 to spend another few thousand dollars on a lot to have a good road going in for emergency vehicles, in my opinion is not a big expense. Mr. Penny: And put a twenty foot road in for one house. Mr. Orlowski: I already told you George that we already talked about lessening that. Mr. Penny: It is a little bit heavy. Mr. Mullen: I might suggest that you direct a letter to the Highway Committee, the Code Committee, and us with your recommendations and anybody else too. We have been working on this for a long time and are still working on it. It isn' t perfect. Mr. Penny: I hope you will continue working on it because the problem is getting worse. It is not so much the value of the property because these people are not selling, these people want to give it to their children. Their children or somebody along the line in acceptance of this gift is forced to spend PLANNING BOARD PAGE 35 JUNE 5 , 1989 thousands of dollars to create an access to their property, so what you have done is you have stopped, you've terminated this type of property gift. Mr. Mullen: We are not going to get anyplace here tonight, unfortunately. Mr. Orlowski: If there is enough road frontage and we can handle it as a Flag Lot but sometimes people don' t like to give up anymore than they have to give up and a Flag Lot doesn' t need anything but a driveway. Mr. Penny: Flag Lots only work in certain cases. Mr. Orlowski: That is right and I think the case your talking about a Flag Lot would work. Mr. Edwards: I would encourage the Code Committee to work with the Board. I too, voted against the minor road specs and I think I was the only one from the Planning Board that did. I'm not in favor but I would like to see the Town work on something that is really more affordable that is adequate. What that solution is I really don' t know. I think it takes a lot of talk and the Code Committee is the place to work on it. Mr. Penny: We started in the Code Committee and when I met with the Planning Board, I ran into a stone wall by the Planning Board (inaudible) and as we go along we find out there are more and more people being affected by this. If the Planning Board felt they had an interest in the direction which I am taking or in which I am encouraging, I would like to hear them at least they are interested in discussing it. Mr. Edwards: I think they have indicated that by going down from the width of twenty feet to even more. I think they have indicated a willingness to work on it. Mr. Mullen: I might suggest that you and everyone else that generates any thought on this come to the meeting of the Highway Code Committee and the Planning Board. We are open for anything we can get. There might be someone out there that has some special input. We are ready and willing to consider it believe me. Mr. Penny: I hate to argue individual cases that is why I am not bringing up the individuals. I like to address it in generalities and when there is more than one it is obvious it is starting to be a problem here. Especially when you are talking about retaining young farming families who happen to be the two cases I'm talking about right now that are hard pressed for finding a piece of property anywhere else and they have no where to go, their family has land but the land is not accessible. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 36 JUNE 5, 1989 Mr. Penny: Is this being recorded because I hope this same attitude appears before the Code Committee and the Highway Committee? I hope I hear the same kind of enthusiasm. Mr. Orlowski: Absolutely. Mr. Orlowski: I ' ll entertain a motion. Mr. Mullen: I make a motion we adjourn. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. 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 9 : 00 p.m. . Rectfully mitted, Jade Rousseau emporary Secretary 5� �i:eZnfir,t' Or owski, Jr. , Chai an RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE ' !I 8� HOUR I Town Clem,T Town of Southold