Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-12/09/1991 o��g�FFO(jt oy► Gyp PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS W SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman • Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. 0 a Richard G. Ward �4 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax.(516) 765-1823 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 9-, 1991 Present were: Bennett Orlowski Jr. , Chairman Richard Ward, Member G. Richie Latham, Member Mark McDonald, Member Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Absent: Holly Perrone, ' Secretary Jane Rousseau, Secretary Kenneth Edwards, Member Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business, Board -to set Monday, December 23 , 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall as the time and place for the next regular Planning. Board meeting. 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. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. 4 ` PLANNING BOARD 2 DECEMBER 9, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Subdivisions - Finals: Mr. Orlowski: Jennie Harris Estate - This minor subdivision. is for two' lots on 48,453 square feet located on the northwest side of County Road 48; 918 feet southwest of Cox Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-96-1-18. We have proof of publication in both local papers and 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 neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that may be of interest to the Board? Mr. Dan Ross: I represent the Jennie Harris application and am in support of it. I believe we have met all of the Board's requests and requirements. I know there were some misgivings with respect to this subdivision early on, the fact that the subdivision will allow the Taylor family and the five children to live in the house and own the house and on behalf of the Taylor family, we wish to thank the Board and request that the application be granted. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , any other comments? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Board: No questions. Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no further questions, I ' ll declare this hearing closed. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. McDonald: I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, Jennie Harris Estate is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM # 1000-96-1-18, located at the northwest side of C. R. 48 in Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, this minor subdivision, .to be known as Jennie Harris Estate, is for two lots on 48,453 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8) , Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on March 27, 1990; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision amendment application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on December 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore,. PLANNING BOARD 3 DECEMBER 9, 1991 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated October 23 , 1991. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps) Mr. Orlowski: ACMT Corporation - This proposal is to set-off a 80,000 square foot parcel from an existing 47. 0520 acre parcel located on the northwest side of Oregon Road in Cutchogue. SCTM # 100,0-95-1-3. We have proof of publication in both the local papers and at this time everything is in order for a public hearing. I ' ll ask if there are any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, 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: No questions. i Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no ,questions, I will declare this hearing closed. Does the Board have pleasure. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, ACMT Equities Inc: is the owner of the property known and designated as SCTM # 1000-95-1-3, located at Oregon Road in Mattituck, and WHEREAS, this set-off, to be known as ACMT Corp. , is to set-off a 1. 8365 acre parcel from a 47.052 acre parcel, and; WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8) , _Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on November 18, 1991; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision amendment application at the Town Hall, 'Southold, New York on December 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met; and PLANNING BOARD 4 DECEMBER 9, 1991 be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to. endorse the final survey dated October 9, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor?' Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps) . Mr. Orlowski: A. P. Sepenoski - This proposal is to set off 2. 08 acre parcel from an existing 10 acre parcel located at the north side of Main Road (S.R. �25) ; west of 'Rocky Point Road in East Marion. SCTM #1000-113-8-;5. We have proof of publication in both the local papers and at this time everything is in order for final hearing. I -11 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 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: No questions-. Mr. Orlowski: No further questions, ' I° 11 declare this hearing closed. Does the Board have any pleasure? Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. WHEREAS, A. P. Sepenoski; is the owner of the property known and designated as .SCTM # 1000-31-1-5.2, located at the north side of Main Road (S.R. 25) ; and west side of Rocky Point Road in East Marion; and WHEREAS, this set-off, to be known as Set-off. for A. P. Sepenoski, Jr. , is to set-off a 2.08 acre parcel from an existing ten acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8) , Part 617, declared .itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on October 2, 1990; and WHEREAS, a final public hearing was closed on said subdivision application at the Town Hall, Southold, New York on December 9, 1991; and y PLANNING BOARD 5 DECEMBER 9, 1991 WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Southold have been met and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey- 'dated, January 7, 1991: Mr. ,Latham: Second: Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward.. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps) . Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings: Mr. Orlowski: Eleanor Sievernich - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 3 .748 acres located on the east side of Cox Neck Lane in Mattituck. SCTM # '1000-113-8-5. If there are no questions, I will entertain a motion to keep the hearing open. 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. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND SET OFF APPLICATIONS Final Determination: Mr. Orlowski: Jennie Harris Estate - SCTM #1000-96-1-18. Already done. Mr. Orlowski: ACMT .Corp. - SCTM #1000-95-1-3 . Already done. PLANNING BOARD 6 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: A. P. Sepenoski - SCTM # 1000-31-1-5.2. Already done. Final .Extensions: Mr. Orlowski: Baxter Sound Estates - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 5 .022 acres located on the north side of Oregon Road; 1100 feet west of Bridge Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-73-2-2. 1 & 3 . Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like, to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a ninety ( 90) day extension of conditional final approval. Conditional final approval was granted on February 25, 1991. This second 90 day extension will expire on February 25, 1992 unless all conditions of approval have been fulfilled. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Sketch Extensions Mr. Orlowski: John S. Guest - This minor subdivision is for three lots on 13.7 acres located on the west side of Cresent Avenue on Fishers Island. SCTM # 1000-6-1-5. Mr. Orlowski: I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED. that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a; six month extension of sketch approval from November 30, 1991 to May 30, 1992. This will be the last extension that the Planning Board will be granting. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, PLANNING BOARD 7 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: BergenHollows - This minor subdivision is for four lots on ten acres located on the north side of Bergen Avenue in Mattituck. SCTM # 1000-112-1-16. 1. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant. a six month extension of sketch approval from October 1, 1991 to April 1, 1992. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Bond Release: Mr. Orlowski: Cedarfields - This major subdivision is for thirty-nine lots on 26.471 acres located on Middle Road (North Road) and Moore' s Lane in Greenport. S.CTM #1000-55-2-9.1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend that the Town Board release the Letter of Credit for the above mentioned subdivision in accordance with the report dated November 20, 1991 from Raymond Jacobs, Superintendent of Highways and the report dated November 15, 1991 from James Richter, Engineering Inspector. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. e PLANNING BOARD 8 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: HighpointMeadows Sections 1, 2 & 3 formerly known as DBM Affordable Housing - This major subdivision is for fifty-five Tots on 37.762 acres located on the .east side of Boisseau Avenue in Southold. SCTM #1000-55-6-15.1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend that the Town Board release the Letter of Credit for the above mentioned subdivision in' accordance with the report dated November 20, 1991 from Raymond Jacobs, Superintendent of Highways and the report dated October 23 , 1991 from James Richter, Engineering Inspector. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. MAJOR AND MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES, SET OFF APPLICATIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Frank Cichanowicz & Thomas Jerome - This major subdivision is for seventeen lots ,on 35.7022 acres located on the north side of Main Road (S.R. 25) off Maple Road in Southold. SCTM # 1000-75-2-8 & 9. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, take Lead Agency, and as Lead Agency make a determination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, PLANNING BOARD 9 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed. so ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Bayberry Estates - This major subdivision is for eighteen lots on 50.0171 acres located on the west side of Laurel Avenue; 140 feet south of Yennecott Drive in Southold. SCTM # 1000-55-6-35 and 36 and 1000-56-1-1. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, as Lead Agency, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward,' Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Samuel S. Polk - This minor subdivision is for two lots on 4.88 acres located on East End Road Chocomount Hill on Fishers Island. SCTM # 1000-4-5-5. 9. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, establishes itself as lead agency, and as lead agency makes a determination of non-significance, and grants a Negative Declaration. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr.. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. PLANNING BOARD 10 DECEMBER 9, 1991 SITE PLANS Final Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Oregon Road Recycling - This proposal is to develop a non-residential recycling and salvage facility property located on the south side of Oregon Road; 572.53 feet west of Cox's Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM * 1000-83-3-4.5. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Quality .Review Act, hereby takes lead agent status; makes a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration for this proposal to construct a recycling and salvage facility. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on. the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further motion. RESOLVED that the' Southold Town Planning Board hereby grants site plan approval upon fulfillment of the following conditions: Submission of five revised site plans which incorporate the following: 1. A ten (10) foot wide vegetative buffer around the entire perimeter of the side and 'rear portions of the property. The landscape plan for the buffer shall show a double row of staggered evergreen trees. ' A mix of the following species shall be used: white pines, white cedar, red spruce and arborvitae. The trees shall be between 8 and 10 feet in height and shall be planted twenty ( 20) feet apart (on center) ; except that trees between the southern edge of the car ,storage area and the southernmost end of the property may be between 5 and 6 feet in. height. 2. The following notations:, A. The landscaping in the front yard shall be of PLANNING BOARD 11 DECEMBER 9, 1991 sufficient depth and height to block the view of. the equipment from the road and the neighboring residences, subject to a one year review by this Board. B. In the interest of mitigating noise, additional buffering shall be installed, as needed, subject to a one year review by this Board. C. A means of providing .water spray shall be maintained on the site at all times for the, purpose of dust control on the site and by the crushing equipment. i D. The site shall be operated - in accordance with all conditions of approval as they were set forth by the Town Board in its resolution of approval which were adopted on April 9, 1991, November 26, 1991 and December 1Q, 1991 and by the Zoning Board of Appeals in its decision of September 12, 1991 on Appeal No. 4041. (The Liber and Page numbers of all required Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall be noted on the site plan. ) 3. An approval stamp by the 'Suffolk County Department of Health and a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for each of all proposed activities on the site. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Joseph Shipman - This site plan is for a change of ,use from Shamrock Tree Company to Acrylic Duck Marine Canvas, and adding additional landscaping. This project is located on Main Road in Laurel. SCTM # 1000-125-1-19.1. - ' Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer -the following resolution. WHEREAS, Joseph P. Shipman isthe owner of the property known and designated as Site Plan for Joseph Shipman SCTM #1000-125-1-19.7, located at 66-19 Main Road in Laurel; and i PLANNING BOARD 12 DECEMBER 9, 1991 WHEREAS, A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS SITE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED ON August 13 , 1991; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, (Article 8) , Part 617, declared itself Lead Agency and issued a Negative Declaration on November 18, 1991; and WHEREAS, this site plan was certified by Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector on November 29, 1991; and . WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Site Plan Regulation of the Town of Southold have been met; and be it therefore, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approve and authorize the Chairman to endorse the final survey dated July 19, 1991 and last revised on October. 8, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? i Ayes: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: opposed? So ordered. (Chairman endorsed maps) . .SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT Lead Agency Process Mr. Orlowski: Metro Service Station - Planning Board to start SEQRA coordinated review for addition of canopy to existing site. SCTM * 1000-102-5-;26. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning .Board, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this Unlisted action. The environmental review is proceeding with .the understanding that the changes requested in the November 14, 1991 letter, will be made to the site plan along with any environmental mitigation measures that may be deemed necessary. Mr. Latham: Second. PLANNING BOARD 13 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: NYNEX Mobile Communications - Planning. Board to start SEQRA coordinated review for proposed amendment to approved site plan for Arthur V. 'Junge to permit the installation of a one hundred foot telecommunications monopole. SCTM #k 1000-96-1-19.1. Mr. Ward: , Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this Unlisted Action. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Ward,, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Ralph Pugliese - This proposed site plan is to convert existing barns into a winery on approximately two acres located on Main Road in Cutchogue. SCTM *1000-97-1-P/0 12. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this unlisted action. The Board makes an initial determination of non-significance. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. McDonald: Mr'. Chairman, I have a question. Mr. Orlowski: Go ahead. Mr. McDonald: This property is now subdivided, it is attached to the rear section of the property right? PLANNING BOARD 1.4 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. McDonald: Is the northern most section of this property in a SGPA, and if that is the case, does this have to be a Type I action? Mr. Orlowski: It is only connected by a strip. Mr. McDonald: Well, what I would ask is, since we're acting on the winery which clearly is not part of it, is this an unlisted action or because it is connected, is it a Type I action. Mr. Orlowski: I think it is an unlisted action. Mr. McDonald: Alright, O.K. Mr. Latham: I' ll second it again. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Mr. McDonald: Let me ask one more thing. Did you have a long form on. this? Mr. Orlowski: That is a good question. Ms. Spiro: I don't think 'so, I ' ll have to check. We have a short form. Mr. McDonald: Short form? Mr. Orlowski: Short form? Do you-want to proceed? Mr. McDonald: Yes. It would have been better with a long form though. Mr. Orlowski: I can get him to fill one out. Mr. McDonald: No. Mr. Orlowski: It' s a good question though Mark. Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in- favor? Ayes; Mr. Latham, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: BillysBistro - This proposed site plan is to add a 924 square foot addition to an existing restaurant located on Main Road in Greenport. SCTM #1000-45-4-7 & 8.2. PLANNING BOARD 15 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I. would like to offer the following resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board start the coordination process on this unlisted action. The Board makes an initial determination of non-significance. Mr. McDonald: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Determinations: Mr. Orlowski: Hardy Plumbing and Heating - SCTM #1000-114-11=05. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that Southold Town Planning Board take Lead Agency status and I would also like to incorporate the following motion. " RESOLVED that the Planning Board finds that it is 'unable to makes determination of significance because of additional information that has been brought to the Planning Board' s attention during the coordinated review: to wit, 1. The site plan shows the use of the accessory garage as an apartment, which use has been denied by the Zoning Board in the last appeal before it. The site plan must be revised to show a proposed use other than an apartment. 2. A variance is needed for the proposed structure. The proposed storage building has insufficient side yard setback for either an accessory or a principal building in this zone. The Planning Board hereby requests that the applicant provide a corrected site plan and sufficient information for this Board to complete the environmental review. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Latham, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Ward, PLANNING BOARD 16 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Edwards, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Oregon Road Recycling - SCTM *1000-83-3-4. 5. . Done already. Mr. Orlowski: At this 'time we have some people that have scheduled appointments. Mr. Rudy,Bruer is here to discuss the parcel for the Southold Fire District. Mr. Rudy Bruer: The Fire District is purchasing some property at Bayview for the purposes of a substation for emergency and auxiliary equipment to service the Bayview and Peconic area. They essentially feel that there is potential. for loss of life, particularly in the summer time for the inadequate response time that traffic and whatever might take to get a emergency vehicle for instance, from the fire house in town to out to the end of Bayview. They think it is essential to have a substation there. This property has become available and it is large enough and suits all their needs. It has access on three different roads. They specifically asked for, and received, this fifty foot access off to South Harbor which has a firewell midway on the Sepnoski farm not too .f.ar away, down here, and access off. . . and they can get to just about anywhere down there and up to Peconic. We would like to do this by way of a set-off. As a matter of fact tomorrow, if 'you read the paper, there is a resolution for the funding of this, subject to of course, the Board here approving it eventually. . I will get the application in at the meeting. Actually, I thought I had submitted it. Mr. Ward: What are' they actually planning to build there, what is going to be housed? Mr. Bruer: Initially, it is going to be for a emergency. vehicle and then there will be some fire. equipment. That is all at this point. It is solely because the population has grown so much out there that they feel that particularly at this point the emergency vehicles, somebody is going to die because of the response time. Particularly in the summer time. This is ideal, it is the main access to Bayview, you can shoot right down there. You can. get to Peconic, it is near water for its own purposes and the property is large enough and' they. are fortunate to have somebody who is willing to sell it to them. I agreed to do it as a service, actually just to get it through because the owner wasn' t about to do it and we agreed we would take it upon ourselves to do it as a condition of the sale. They are paying a fair price for it. R y PLANNING BOARD 17 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Does anybody have any questions? Mr. Ward: Do you plan to have access off all three roads? Mr. Bruer: Well, the idea would be, I assumed because it was very important to them to be able to say that they could get out this way. I guess fence it off because they have got fifty feet wide and they can get their trucks out. I would imagine it would be on this street here. Bayview Avenue facing out and they will get going on it as soon as they can. One of the things we are going to have to do; with respect to the purchases is go through the SEQRA process because it is a fire district, to coordinate the whole thing, here rather than having it haphazard. ; ! Mr. Orlowski: Do you want us to coordinate the whole thing? Mr. Bruer: I would like to get together with it but I would like to get it going sooner on that end of it otherwise I'm going to have to do it myself andiI wouldn't want to have to have you redo it. Mr. McDonald: All we would need would be some idea of a building envelope and maybe the elevation of the building. I'm not even sure we need drawing elevations but we do need height. Mr. Scopaz: Well, you might be concerned about the setting of the building because of the slope 'on this property.- Mr. McDonald: I 'm not so concerned about that part of the review because if they wanted to do this themselves they could. But I want to make sure that ifwe are going to do the SEQRA that we are not leaving them open for any kind of litigation on that. If we do it without having any kind of building envelope or some idea of what the building 'is, they are going to say it wasn' t a thorough investigation because clearly we didn't even know where the building was going to be, so how did we do a SEQRA on that part of it. That is the action you will be taking, the construction of the building. Mr. Bruer: This is strictly for the cutting up of it. That is what we are concerned about at this point. Mr. McDonald: I understand but the fire department is no party to the subdivision of the property. ' i Mr. Bruer: In one technical sense yes, in another sense no. I mean we are for the contractual purpose of the property and we do have a equitable interest in the property. Mr. McDonald: But, by our code, you can't do that. I don't think it really matters. If we do; the whole thing we can lock the whole thing all tip rather quickly. Do they have any idea where the building is going to be or anything at all? PLANNING BOARD 18 DECEMBER 9, 1991. Mr. Bruer: I don't know if they have anything specific at this moment as I said there is a meeting tomorrow, the election for the commissioner is on for tomorrow. Mr.. McDonald: I would think that all we need is the envelope. We don't need the building and we can wrap the whole thing down in one move. Mr. Ward: The more you can show the better. Mr. Bruer: My only thing is, it is like any Board it is a matter of getting everybody together. I will get this in as soon as I can. Mr. -Orlowski: Just get the application in and if you get a footprint on there we can 'do the, whole thing. Mr. Bruer: O.K. , thank you very much. Mr. Ward: A description of what they propose to do would be helpful even if they don't have it drawn up. Mr. McDonald: So we can put it into the record for the SEQRA part of it. Mr. Bruer: They did have a informal meeting early in the fall or late summer in the paper and there was no opposition. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , another thing here. A bond for the Southold Villas. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the following . resolution. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board adopt the revised bond ESTIMATE for Phase l of Southold Villas dated December .9, 1991, and to recommend same to the Town Board.. The revised bond .estimate for Phase l is in the amount of $358,130. 00 with an inspection fee of $21,488.00. The bond estimate for Phase 2 is to remain as adopted June 24, 1991. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr.. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. li PLANNING BOARD 19 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: O.K. moving on, I see Mr. McCarthy is here. Do you have a question for the Board tonight. Tom McCarthy: I just wanted to get the Board' s feedback on the property in New Suffolk. I would also like to inform the Board that I 've been working together with the Community Development Office as per your recommendation last month and the North Fork Housing Alliance and the project has got feedback from Bessie Swan and the Board of Directors to look further into it. I will be looking for any of the Board's feedback as .to how you would like to see it done. Mr. McDonald: What did you present to them? Mr. McCarthy: What did I present? I presented the idea of a subdivision in four parts and single and separate dwelling units and they will be meeting Thursday to move further. They are interested. Mr. McDonald: So you talked ona mostly preliminary basis with them about it. Mr. McCarthy: Basically, but they are interested and they did bring it up at one of their regular meetings to the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors are very interested in the project. Mr. McDonald: I think if that is the road you are going to take that there is some serious interest here as well. Mr. McCarthy: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , we' ll get back to you and you can keep us informed as to how you are making out. Mr. McCarthy: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Next, I see Mr. Lark out in the audience. Mr. Lark: Good evening, when we were here the last time you said you were going to go down at look at the Grigonis parcel on Wells Avenue. Has the Board been down there? Mr. Orlowski: We've been done there but we haven't sat down together and made any decisions yet. Mr. Grigonis: Did VanTuyl get in touch with you? Mr. Orlowski: No. Mr. Grigonis: The secretary said she was going give him a message to get in touch with you. PLANNING BOARD 20 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: No. We just took a look at it and we are. going to discuss it at the work session. Mr. Lark: O.K. , I have got a couple of questions that maybe you could put- in your discussion. ' I know that. you wanted to treat the application as more, or less a yield map, and keeping in mind that it is R=40. Then I finally get a hold of that September 24thletter that Melissa Spiro wrote, and in it she says that the Environmental Assessment must be corrected specifically number 16. That is very interested, which number 16 since there are three of them on the long form Environmental Assessment form, let me get that clarified. Ms. Spiro: Can I look that up and get back to you on that one? Mr. McDonald: If .you have any questions for the Board we would ,like to entertain them. Mr. Lark: Well, Mr. Orlowski wrote the letter even though he never saw it. Mr. Orlowski: , How do you know I never saw it? Mr. Lark: We already went through that. When will the Board have an answer? As you know, we have seven members- and we have an estate to settle here and one of them has just gone to his eternal reward. Mr. Ward: We will be having a meeting very shortly and we will be taking it up. Mr. Lark: O.K. , did you need anymore contours then he has shown on the map that I gave you the last time? Mr. Ward: Not to make a determination as to which way it goes. Mr. Lark: Is there anything else ,you need from us? Mr. McDonald: Have we made a request to them? Ms. Spiro: About, a year and a half ago we did. Mr. McDonald: O.K. , but we don't need it to make a decision, the basic decision. - Mr. Lark: There will be public water there. Mr. McDonald: We may need that to'.do the final. I,t won't effect the R-40. 'It is not goingAo effect the decision 'as to how we handle the layout, but we will need it for engineering I am sure. Mr. Lark: Why will you need that?[ , I PLANNING BOARD 21 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. McDonald: We are going to have to take a look at the drainage I assume. Mr. Lark: No, they are going to talk about public water, they are going to hook up the two ends of the subdivision to public water. Mr. McDonald: I 'm not talking about how they are going to get water to drink, I am talking about how they are going to handle the runoff. Mr. Lark: Oh, you are talking about drainage. Mr. McDonald: yes. I Mr. Lark: Did you want VanTuyl do give you a study on that? Mr. McDonald: Well, let's decideihow the layout is going to go before we spend your money. Mr. Lark: Can we, have a date on that? i Mr. Latham: We'll get back to you. Mr. Lark: When is the next meeting. Mr. Lark: One died and' one is sick so we are going to be here every week. Mr. Orlowski: Well, don't rush them. Mr. Lark: I 'm not rushing them. Mr. Lark: On Varano. I spoke to you the last time and I think Melissa had the equal lot layout and I wanted to apply to the Board of Appeals on that. Can I go ahead on that, would I get a recommendation, a favorable recommendation? Mr. McDonald: Have you made a application to the ZBA? Mr. Lark: I am in the process. I just have to finalize it. I have a one lot variance now. Remember this is the one I have the one lot variance? Mr. McDonald: I 'm asking if you .have asked the Board for a change in the variance? Mr. Lark: No, I wanted to hear it from you first because they are going to ask me your input. Mr.. Ward: You have three lots so it didn't matter to us. PLANNING BOARD 22 ' DECEMBER 9-, 1991 I Mr. Lark: O.K. , the last one I had was the Dalchet application. They are here tonight also. We applied for a subdivision on that. And on that ;one we have applied to the Board of Appeals because this will take a variance request application to do. Mr. McDonald: You are asking foria variance on lot coverage? Mr. Lark.: Lot *3 as it appears on the minor subdivision. It is a curious situation because you can see where the R-40- comes up. The R-40 comes across the street and comes up here and comes down so portions of this property are in R-40 and the rest of it is in R-80, it has been split off there. Mr. Orlowski: Just for the record, I am abstaining from all discussion in this. Mr. Lark: For what reason? I Mr. Orlowski: It`s an Orlowski. Mr. Lark: Well, I know you know them but what is the basis of objection. Mr. Orlowski: Because we are relatives, should I vote on this? Mr. Lark: Sure. Mr. Orlowski: We are cousins. r Mr. Lark: You can decline if you want, you can excuse yourself but not on the basis that it is a relative. Mr. Orlowski: I just did. (Mr. Orlowski left meeting room) . Mr. Ward: If you are going to have four lots and this is what the yield is this is how -we prefer to see them laid out. (gave Mr. Lark sketch of cluster layout) Mr. Lark: Well, that is not technically true. Make this one lot here? Mr. McDonald: What is the total acreage on this? Mr. Lark: 9.04 acres. Mr. Ward: We are reserving for the future this right-of-way. Mr. Lark: We discussed that with the adjoining owner and he is. , not interested. Mr. Ward: Who is the adjoining owner? PLANNING BOARD 23 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Lark: Frank Cichanowicz, he has it in Holly Hollow nursery. We explored that and we also explored that the Board should know Mr. Ward: What happens if Frank sells the property, . what are they going to do with it then? Mr. Lark: I have no idea, he is not interested. Also, we explored the ownership with each one of the property owners behind and they are not interested, so we tried that. Mr. Ward: The road really isn't contingent on whether the neighbors want it or not. I mean, we are trying to look to the future in this to a degree. Mr. McDonald: Take it back for your review. Mr. Lark: Is this for me? Mr. Ward: Yes. I Mr. Lark: Do you have any questions? Unknown: In' other words, they want to do away with the 'fifth lot? Mr. Lark: Well that is in theory, but look at what they are creating over here. What is it, a three acre lot, a four acre lot? Mr. Ward: At the present time, you don't have a fifth lot. Mr. Lark: That is interesting because some of the property is on R-40. Mr. Ward: What you should do is settle it at the ZBA. Mr. Lark: Yes, but they are going to refer it back to you. Mr. McDonald: Yes, but they will make the decision if you feel that you are technically entitled ,to it, they will do the decision on the R-80, R-40 part based on the technical considerations not on whether we like it or don't like it. j Mr. Lark: O.K. , well we already filed with them. Mr. McDonald: Well, we' ll make that decision so as far as the technical parts of it go, I don't1think our approval or disapproval is going to be signif1cant in any way about the technical aspects. The layout of Cthe property is something else. Mr. Lark: O.K. , so what you are saying is if they come back with the fifth lot. . . . I PLANNING BOARD 24 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. McDonald: So, what you are saying, if they come back with a fifth lot. Mr. McDonald: You have five lots. Mr. Lark: So the subdivision plan that we proposed to you is not absurd. Because giving this back you said the subdivision plan we submitted to you is absurd. This is not the same thing at all. Mr. McDonald: I agree. Mr. Lark: It is not even close. Mr. McDonald: Who told you it was absurd? Mr. Lark: Well, I 'm just interpreting, by giving me this back you saying this is absurd. Mr. McDonald: What you're saying is that we didn't like it as much as we like this. Mr. Lark: Not you like or dislike„ you' re saying it' s absurd because every one of these things that you raised we explored all with the adjoining property owners and they turned us down. Mr. McDonald: We are not asking you to hook up to the adjoining property owners. Mr. Lark: I know that. Mr. McDonald: As far as the tap road goes, we make tap roads all the time with people who say they are never going to subdivide the property and then we' find the properties being subdivided the next month because it has changed hands or circumstances. Now, this is not the final layout so take it back and review it. Mr. Lark: O.K. Mr. McDonald: And you still have the matter before the ZBA that you have to deal with. Mr. Lark: You just have to consider that Chester Orlowski has been dealing with the Building Department for about two years on this situation and has spent several thousand dollars in various layouts with VanTuyl because of the peculiarity when the area got from R-40 to R-80 and portions of his property wasn't included see so. . . . . . Mr. McDonald: Hopefully, the ZBAfwill straighten the yield part out for you. PLANNING BOARD 25 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Lark: O.K. , so is this going to be in abeyance until the ZBA makes a determination? Mr. McDonald: Well, there is no point in designing a subdivision without knowing how many lots are going to be there. Mr.. Lark: Alright, that is fair enough so we will be back to you as soon as the ZBA renders a decision. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. , Would someone here from Metro like to make -a few comments: Mr. Frank Nealon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I am with Permit Research Environmental consultants. When Valerie telephoned my office this. morning and mentibned 'the fact that they were going to have a hearing tonight, not as much as a public hearing but a presentation or that the application was going before a SEQRA review. I asked if I may come out and share some of our concerns with the Board regarding two particular items. One is the buffer zone in front of the pump islands and number two, the street trees along Depot Road. If I can address the street trees first, I believe the. Planning Board suggested that three street trees be planted on the Depot Road side. One in the rear buffer zone, not the buffer zone but the landscaped area and two, along Depot Road in forward landscaped area. Mr. McDonald: Are we carrying the plan on this? Do we have it out. Mr. Frank Nealon: That was an original proposal by the Planning Department for those trees. We have no problem with this tree located here, the rear tree. We believe that the front tree, in time, would cause a sight problem on buses coming down from the school along with traffic traveling east and west , on Main Street. If we could affix this one tree, almost equal distance of the tree that is across the street on the other property line, I believe it is about fifty feet back and they would balance off and give visibility to the intersection. If the Board would consider that instead of having two trees in that area. I believe in time they will grow together and cause a sight problem. They were looking for some pretty large size trees there. Mr. Ward.: What size tree would you be willing to put in? Mr. Nealon: What ever the town would prefer we would implement there, three feet or .four, three inch, four inch, five inch tree so in time it would grow to a dimension that would not obscure and block visibility. PLANNING BOARD 26 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Ward: I don't see a problem with that. Maybe instead of a three and a half, use one that is four and a half. Mr. Nealon: Eliminate the forward one and possibly plant it equal to the tree across the street. Mr. McDonald: Locate it on the site plan. Mr. Nealon: Will do. Number two, I believe it was the request of the Board initially toput a four foot wide minimum. hedge in front of the- pump islands, between the side walk and the pump islands. There are monitoring wells that are located on the plan in front in between, well, right off the side walk and they can't be anymore than two and one half to three feet. Three feet would be a maximum. To place a hedge in that area four feet wide would cause damage to the wells if any digging took place in that area. . . .- any type because the concrete is in place now and if we had to take a back hoe in there we would certainly damage those sidewells. I had talked to Mark McDonald about it and he said the Planning Board, their main concern was to put some sort of a buffer zone in there. To implement anything above the ground as Mark had mentioned putting railroad ties in in front of the sidewalk and filling in with soil to put some sort of a plant area. To put in azaleas, lets say, a small growing planter on top of the sidewalk in a dirt filled area, pretty soon the roots for those azaleas are going to hit the concrete and when they hit the concrete, they are going to mix in with the line. and they are. going to die. There isn't very much planting that we can put in- there that is going to sustain growth: I had mentioned this to the Metro representatives and we had mentioned the fact that the Planning Board or the Town'was looking for additional landscaping in the area. As far as hedges are concerned, we could put hedges between the sidewalk and the street and possibly do some beautification in there, and additional landscaping. . . . but we don't see how in the world any particular landscaped area could be instituted. or placed between the sidewalk and the pump islands. I spoke to our engineer earlier today concerning those barriers that you may see in parking lots where cars pull up to but we would have to bolt those into the ground and considering we are in the northeast and snowfall may come in the winter time, there are only about eight, seven to eight inches high that a plow may come along in the winter time and totally knock them .out of placement in the winter time. If it is too low, snow can cover it, if it is too high it may be unsightly. So here again, I think we are submitting or proposing an option if the Town would want landscaping to make it between the sidewalk and the. street. We think it is the only viable area where it can be done. Mr. McDonald: It misses the point of what we are trying, to do here. It is not simply a matter of beautification, _we need this PLANNING BOARD 27 DECEMBER 9, 1991 protection and we are trying to make this protection look good too. Mr. Ward: I believe you could go two or three foot wide with your planter area and be successful and make a hedge out of it. Mr. Orlowski: How about just the planter buffers? I think what we are looking for is a little buffer from where the. bus stop is and the people sitting and walking on the sidewalk if someone comes in. i Mr. Nealon: Can you tell me where the concern is? Mr. McDonald: There is nothing between the people driving into your gas station and the sidewalk, literally. There is no delineation. Mr. Nealon: Must there be something there though? Mr. McDonald: Yes, because we don't want the cars driving on the sidewalk, people walk on thedsidewalk right.? We want to delineate the difference between the sidewalk and this area so it is not like an airport with people zooming across. Mr. Nealon: Alright, let me describe something to you. If we have traffic, automobiles that are traveling west to east and if you are talking about speed. coming across the road and the fear of pedestrians being hit, if I am traveling west on .Main Street and I have a 1990 or 1989 car and my gas tank is on the passenger side,. I am going to come to a stop in. front of the service station, in front of the entrance because I have to move all the way around to the inward pump because my gas tank is going to be on the passenger side ,so I have to facilitate the inner side of the pump island. If I am coming down Depot Road and I live in the neighborhood, and I am in tune and I know there is a school there, and that there are children walking along there, I am not going to be doing 50 and 40 and 35 miles per hour; I am going to be taking my time coming into the site traversing the site and going over to the pumps. I think that eliminates two areas where you may have the bulk of the traffic that you will be concerned with using the pump island. The only island or the only ingress into the site where you would. have a problem would be people who would be traveling east to west. Now if you are traveling east to west, the chances are you live in the neighborhood, •you are not going out to the island on. some sort of an excursion. You live in the neighborhood and you are coming into the gas station and you are aware of the conditions and .of the speed limit and of the school there. I don't know of Any traffic accident that involved pedestrian traffic at the site where your concerns would have a major impact on the need for the buffer zone. Mr. McDonald: I have to admit that you just dumped me totally. What you said that a driver who is in complete control knows the y PLANNING .BOARD 28 DECEMBER 9, 1991 I conditions and does nothing foolish will not hurt anyone. I agree with that but I am not interested in that driver because I know he is not going to. do 'anything. I 'm interested in the driver that -doesn't know the conditions in the area, is not interested in driving safely and may do something stupid. Mr. Nealon: But do we have instances that back that up Mark?Have there been pedestrian accidents do to the traffic entering and leaving the site? i Mr. McDonald: None that 'I know of but it is 'a very simple safety measure and .it amazes me that Metro would be so resistant to try and protect pedestrian traffic safety. When you are walking there there 1s literally no difference between the parking lot and the sidewalk. Mr. Nealon: Mark, I don't say this tongue and cheek. I am retired from the New York City Police Department so I know what cars can do to pedestrians and I just don't see it there. Mr. McDonald: Unfortunately, what we feel is going to prevail. We are going to ask for some kind of buffer here and we are hoping that you are going to work with us to do something that makes sense. Now, you have concerns and I don't want to say that they are not concerns, they are obviously real but something clearly can be done here. Mr. Nealon: If you can make a suggestion I would like to hear what could be implemented and would not be destroyed during the winter time. Mr. Ward: Make a planter three .foot wide and put a hick's hue hedge in it, it will survive. Mr. Nealon: But we are talking about earthing the ground now and digging up the concrete, it is going to destroy the site. Mr. Ward: How far off the sidewalk are the wells? Mr. Nealon: The maximum three feet. Mr. Ward: So what is the big deal? Mr. Nealon: How are you going to dig, how are you going to come down and dig into the soil? Mr. Ward: All you have to do is soft cut the edge in here and break the concrete up and put some topsoil in and plant some shrubs. Mr. Nealon: I still think you are going to damage those wells in the digging. PLANNING BOARD 29 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. McDonald: You cut them free first right? You use the cutter and cut around them to cut them free. Mr. Nealon: You are still going to have to go down in that soil and I believe you have to widen, you know you have to widen, you can't just go down at cut straight° When you put a shrub into the ground you have to give some kind of width into your planting. Mr. Ward: You cut vertically down 18 inches and you put the balls of the plants in you will be alright. Mr. McDonald: Again, as Benny said, I don't have a problem with the planter idea either as an alternative. I think either of them will work. Mr. Nealon: Planter boxes above the ground? Mr. Ward: I think you are better off cutting the planter in and putting the hedge in. I think anything permanent, a car scrapes it, you know you have problems with' car doors if they hit them. This way it is a hedge and if it gets a little damage or a car overrides it or something it is easy to replace. You are not going to replace a car door. Mr. Latham: They' ll live too. Mr. Ward: Put a guard rail in there, you put a, fence, you put something rigid in there so if a car does hit it, it is going to be a hazard. Mr. Nealon: Mr. Ward, you are talking about going straight down and I don't think that can be done and put a shrub in. Mr. Ward: It can be done, believe me. Mr. Nealon: I 'm saying that the site wells are a maximum of three feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Ward: It is not a problem. You should be able to' cut around those. Mr. Nealon: Here is a photograph of the site well that is. right off the sidewalk, right there and you are talking about saw, cutting. straight down without damaging that well at all and being able to put in a planter. I find it difficult for that to be done. Mr. McDonald: What could they have been done with, eight inch diameter? Maybe they were done with six inch ID hollows, right, so the total size of the hole is maybe ten inches? Which even if they grout it it means that it is ten inch from the outside of the very center of the well and it has something in it so you PLANNING BOARD 30 DECEMBER 9, 1991 jump out twelve -inches, cut it and you are clear, there is nothing else left. There is nothing to interfere. with. Mr. Orlowski: How may shrubs would you be talking about? Mr. Ward': To make a hedge you would probably put in two foot centers or two and a half foot centers so they will grow together and make a nice hedge. Mr. Nealon: And talking about a ball how big? Mr. Ward: , Eighteen inches. Mr. Nealon: And you believe that this is going to be a protective buffer for a car and a pedestrian. Mr. Ward: It is going to define the pathway that we are interested in. It is not going to stop a car going through it if it is out of control. Mr.. Nealon: No, there is no way in the world you are going to do that as the testimony to the girl that passed away in East Hampton. I mean. there is nothing that is going to stop a car if it is out of control.- Mr. Ward: But, it does give a guide where the cars are coming in. Mr. Nealon: Doesn't egress and ingress do the same thing? Mr. McDonald: The way it is designed it almost begs a second car to try and go by on the sidewalk because of the width of this. It is wide enough, your property is wide enough for one car, with the sidewalk it is wide ',enough for .two. It is like begging someone to cut through here please. Mr. Ward: We want to solve that. ' ' Mr. Nealon: I don't think it has ever happened gentlemen. I really don' t. If you were driving a car and I was driving a car would I ever attempt such a maneuver like that with a car. Mr. McDonald: Well, I hope you wouldn't and I hope we wouldn't either. Mr. Orlowski: I have got to tell you. I go to church down here Sunday morning and it is the easiest. If there are two or three cars here we just go right along here and we are in 7-11 with no problem, don't have to stop for traffic. I 'do it, I confess. I know I am probably on the sidewalk. It does work well. Mr. Nealon: I ' ll pass it on fella's. Thanks for your time. PLANNING BOARD 31 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Caulfield is here to discuss Plock property. Mr. Caulfield: Is the whole Board .,aware of the whole project do you think? Mr. Orlowski: I explained it to them briefly. Mr. Caulfield: I would like to just do two things primarily. One is to really formerly get the ball rolling on the subdivision and I want to thank the Planning Department and the Planning Board for all of your help and patience and you know we have gone through the whole process with the family and we are ready to proceed as quickly as we' possibly can'. I. also wanted to, before I get into how we want to go ahead here, I just wanted to inform the Board about an independent work that the Peconic Land Trust has been involved with with the neighboring , parcels. We have been having a number of discussions with two neighbors, one is George Dunn and others and the other piece is the Ray Kerresterparcel. We have been talking to them about working with them on their property in a similar way that we have been working with the Plock family to try to come up with some kind of plan that would have a conservation element, a significant reduction in density and then perhaps work together with the trust, if the trust were involved in managing the open space and preserve. As far as George Dunn -is concerned and that is the immediately adjacent piece, the property did just recently come back to him. He has now received a deed and they are very interested in. the very next property and they are very interested in working with the trust. He wanted to wait to see if Ray Karresteron the third parcel was as interested as they were in getting involved. We have .been meeting and talking with Wickham, Wickham and Bressler and apparently they are very interested although we don't have ,any final Word from Ray Karrester. George Dunn -expressed a strong interest in working along the same lines but wanted to wait to hear from Ray Karrester. We may be meeting with Ray as soon as this Wednesday so it looks good in terms of the trusts interest in working on a larger scale in the area. However, when we look at just the Plock property, we're at the point right now where the Plock family really wants to go ahead with the subdivision and my most recent communication formerly with the Planning Department and I think the Board, was that we should submit a six lot subdivision .which would be showing the four subdivision lots, the trust preserve and then another piece of neighboring lands. Mr. Orlowski: The whole ,piece. Mr. Caulfield: Yes. At this point. . . . PLANNING BOARD 32 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Lark,: That is neighboring lands and we have no control over that. I;f you want five lots, that is fine by .me, one of which would be a covenant with 'the title will pass on final approval of the subdivision to the Peconic Land Trust. They were going to manage and run the boat basin but there are no six lots there. Mr. Orlowski: If done in Karrester. Mr. Lark: I don' t care. Mr. Orlowski: Wait a minute, if they want to do the same thing, the Board can probably handle this all separately with some type of set-off. Mr. Lark: It won't be a sixth lot. Mr. Orlowski: But, we can do it different then. a sixth lot. Mr. McDonald: If you want to calljt a sixth lot you can but we could look at it simply as just setting it off? Mr. Lark: No, it will not be a sixth lot because we can't, we don't own the property. Mr. Orlowski: No, it will be Karrester's property and Dunn's property. Mr. McDonald: You would be set apart from that property if you would rather look at it in that light. Mr. Lark: That is a very important point because the Township is getting something with this applicant and they are going to give up something possibly with the other application because this is a no profit application, there is no money to be made obviously they are not in it for laughs since they had to take it back in foreclosure. Mr. McDonald: Those issues of whether there is a sixth lot or not will .have no effect on your subdivision. Mr. Lark; If you want five lots as opposed to four, that is fine. Mr. Orlowski: Well, on your piece it would be that. Five lots. Mr. Lark: The fifth lot being the covenant. Mr. Caulfield: So we are saying the same thing. Mr. Orlowski: Yes. PLANNING BOARD 33 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Caulfield: So that is where we are at. We would like to submit a application that shows just this .property and we need to start working with the surveyor, he has been .working already but we held it up when we were discussing a larger map. We want to proceed with a map that just shows this property but what we would like to do or can do is provide -every opportunity either in this subdivision application, in' the home owners. association that would put together for expanding it for allowing access from adjoining parcels. Mr. Orlowski: I 'm sure that whatever you do down here will tie in with what you are doing over here as far as preserved area with Mr. Dunn. That would be separate from this. Mr. Caulfield: That is the key, I. think. We want to make clear that any work would be all done on a separate basis. I think there are too many people and, there are too many things could go wrong. Mr. Orlowski: I think with what we are gaining here we can do "- it. Mr. McDonald: Yes, we're ready to move ahead. Mr. Caulfield: Q.K. . Mr. McDonald: As long as the Plocks are happy. Let' s go. Mr. Lark: What he is asking you is, do you want provisions :for future expansion on .the roadway? I am not getting involved with the boat basin. because that is a separate issue which involved the Trustees and a lot of other people. But, do you want access that these properties can then ultimately utilize this road for keeping in mind that if any other' properties or any other-. subdivision or any other resident's : use this that this would have to be upgraded to Town specs. Then you would have a flow through- going out which we would have to, is what' he is saying, work out some kind of easement arrangements that in the future with the land trust that they could grant if you would, the right to come through this portion of. it. Mr. McDonald: I think that .is what we would ask. That we reserve the right that we would be.'able to grant us this is should need it. There is really no reason to put it down because who knows, what is going to happen. Mr. Lark: That is what I was talking to Tim and the people in the Land Trust. . . but 'we would provide for that language wise and I think he can show feasibility wise because he did look at it and did do a study and he can hook in here. Mr. McDonald: It presents some other problems but we certainly are going to leave the option open for the future. PLANNING BOARD 34 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Caulfield: What type of problems do you have? Mr., McDonald: Well, one of the problems is that it is one thing .because of the enormous give backs in this, the proximity of this road to the wetlands for four potential properties right but suddenly there is this innumerable, and I 'm not going to try and make a guess about how many would go in there vehicles and persons in close proximity to the wetlands it might have an impact on whether we viewed taking all the traffic in this way or not. I 'm sure you have been up there but on paper it is not as wide, in reality you get up there and you say this is not that wide. Mr. Ward: You may have additional filling in to do. Mr. McDonald: Rather than lock ourselves into it, I would like to be able to have the option. Mr. Caulfield: We are talking about potentially a second access, not the primary access. Mr. McDonald: Once it is open, people go where ever they please. I am not saying no, I want to make it clear, I'm just saying that rather then get caught' up in whether we are going to do this or not, leave ourselves the option and .if we need it, it is there.. We would ask for that against your section. Mr. Lark: Yeah, it would be .on lot five.. What. we're calling lot five now. Mr. McDonald: Should we need you to provide access in the future it would be available. Mr. Lark: I said. that would be no problem and we could put that in language in an informative form; I have no problem with that for future expansion because it is recognized and it is a very nice road it will serve very nicely for four lots and for what they are going to do down in here but, if you are going to create a major subdivision, they are going to have to bring that up to grade because you are going to be changing the drainage. Mr. McDonald: Until you see the overall plan of how the other properties are going to come in, it is hard to make a judgement. Mr. Lark: He has to make clear in his negotiations with Dunn and anybody else if they want to impact this property with more residences, they are going to have to bring that road up to town specs. Mr. McDonald: Unless their access is some other access. Mr. Lark: When you look at the layout of Dunn' s property, there is not some other way. PLANNING BOARD 35 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. McDonald: We feel what they are giving up is sufficient. All this- is open for negotiation. Mr. Caulfield: I would like a little clarification on the road spec as it is considering one -subdivision right here. If we went through, I just want a little clarification. Last time I heard from the Planning Department, I think, that there would be some road specs. Mr. McDonald: Who owns this. Mr. Lark: Dunn. Mr. McDonald: This is a ZBA. matter, right? I 've been on that road. Ms. Scopaz: The only time it would be within the Planning Boards prerogative is setting off one lot from the other. Then you have control over it, if you don't then you can' t. Mr. McDonald: The question is what happens on the section they are going build? Mr. Orlowski: The section they are going to. build we will have to use the minimum spec whatever it is. There is abase in there anyhow. Mr. Lark: Where are you talking about now- because I do know the property. (Everyone talking. ) Mr. McDonald: You are going to have to do something more to really get through- here with a minimal of disturbance. Mr. Lark: If you get too beefy there you are going to cause trouble. Ms. Scopaz: I believe if you look. on the map there are two access points here, this road is split and you can .get down here and over. Mr. Lark: No, they don' t intend to cross it will just be a foot path. It will only be a foot path this way. Ms. Scopaz: I am referring to the statement he made earlier about emergency access. Mr. McDonald: There is a big difference between the state of the road that goes this way and what is left. Everyone talking. y PLANNING BOARD 36 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Caulfield: So what I am hearing, the part that is unimproved right now would certainly have to be improved. Mr. Orlowski: No, how much and how you are going to access that property or are you going to keep the development down here and tie this together? Ms. Scopaz: You are going to have to decide how to split the property off. Mr. McDonald: I know but I don't. think that is an issue with the road. Ms. Scopaz: It only becomes an issue if you want control over the road or not. If you treat it as it is then it goes to the Zoning Board. Mr. McDonald: I would look to our. SEQRA Determination which could have a serious impact on the, condition of the road. Mr. Orlowski: When Mr. Dunn comes .in you talk with him, that will decide what we are going to do with that part of the road. Mr. McDonald: We are going to proceed with this though. Mr. Lark: Yes. That may never come in. Mr. McDonald: If and when the other people come in we will have to adjust our plans accordingly but for now we need to move ahead. Mr. Lark: Well, I think what Tim wanted to know and I think you have answered it. In this we have ,to language it for possible future access if requested by the Planning Board. You don't have a problem with that? Because you are semi government here anyway because of the transactions you want to do with the Town with the shellfishing and things like that so I 'm not too concerned about it. That can be done language wise and then the environmental thing will take over because you can't make a fifty foot road in there if it is going to impact on the water. Mr. Ward: Right now, the spec for this would be sixteen foot without curbs. Mr. Lark: You are talking about in here. Yeah, that's not a problem. If we can get by here that is just not a problem. That is all figured in and we don't have a problem with that. Everyone talking. Mr. McDonald: I don't want to cut it off though. Mr. Orlowski: But, if we have that option, it would be nice. PLANNING BOARD 37 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Lark: Well, that is what you want, that is what he is looking for. Mr. McDonald: It might be useful for like with a break away to , make the second access. Mr. Lark: Well not only that it could be a fire access road too. Mr. McDonald: Exactly. Mr. Lark: The Land Trust is very nervous about the whole thing because it is a pilot project for them. Mr. McDonald: It is a great project. Mr. Lark: Actually, I 'm a legal owner here unfortunately. Mr. Orlowski: That' s what I heard. That's good-. Mr. Lark: I think it will work out nice especially if we can get good utilization„out of that pond area. Everyone talking. Mr. McDonald: I would. ask that we . take the lead agency since we have the larger determination although there are wetlands here. The subdivision is the major action that is taking place. Everything the Trustees would be doing is secondary and I would ask that we take Lead Agency but that is a discussion that will take place within the process itself because if they make an application for Lead Agency then there will be discussions. Mr. Orlowski: . Well, we will initiate it and coordinate it. Mr. Lark: The DEC indicated that they would leave it for local determinations as far as DEC. Mr. Caulfield: It was just a question of whether the Trustees. wanted it or not. Mr. McDonald: I am sure we' ll be the Lead Agency. Mr. Lark: That makes sense because the major thing is the subdivision. Mr. Caulfield: The only last thing I wanted to ask you and I 've asked. you this before. Now that we are at this size. Technically, which application is it? The minor subdivision application? Mr. McDonald:. I really think it has to be the major because of the road. That is the real problem with this. The code says with the road, you are now a major. If I 'm not mistaken is it cheaper for the major at this size than the minor? PLANNING BOARD 38 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Ms. Spiro: Maybe, it depends. . Mr. Lark: It doesn't make any difference to me, but it does to him because there is only so many dollars for the improvement and he is trying- to maximize the dollars. Mr. McDonald: The major may be cheaper for him when he calculates what it costs to make the application. Ms. Scopaz: Except that they have an enormous amount of land that they are not using and the major subdivision fee is based on land acreage. Mr. McDonald: Maybe we. can take a .look at the application. Mr. Orlowski: Maybe we can base it on what they are going to end up with and what we are going to end up with we can deduct because that would only be fair. Mr. Lark: He wants to put maximum dollars into the land as he can, into his section of the land. This is what he is interested in because one of the big problems that he doesn't like to' talk about is the bulkheading, with one northeaster is gone. He just wants to find out which way he is going so it is obviously Trustee and DEC and everyone else. Mr. Caulfield: Previously, we were going to have to hold off on doing a lot of the improvements but apparently through the goodness of the Plock family now we will be able to proceed with a lot of the improvements a lot sooner. Mr. McDonald: We want to do whatever we can to help move the project ahead so if you have particular problems whatever they may be, you should bring them to our attention. There might be something we can do to help you. Mr. Orlowski: Have you talked to the marine program people at the Suffolk County Extension and Sea Grant? Mr. Caulfield: Yes, he seems to think it would be a good compliment to what he is doing down' there at Cedar Beach. Mr. Orlowski: This will fit right in. Mr. Lark: O.K. , is that about it because he is ready to file the application he just wanted some direction on it just which way to go. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Being there are no further questions here tonight, I ' ll make a motion to adjourn. Richard Israel: East Marion, the eight and one quarter feet that I want to try to take over. Do I have the right to move PLANNING BOARD 39 DECEMBER. 9, 1991 the right-of-way as long as I give people the egress that they would normally have? Mr. Orlowski: That' s a legal question but they all ,would have to be agreeable, and they all would have to be guaranteed the same access. Mr. Israel: Is the Board going to require me to get everybody' s permission who has the right of that right- of- way to move it or if I just give them proper access, it is a legal question, as long as I give them proper access will the Board just waive it? Mr. Orlowski: We have to ask our Town Attorney, we can't answer that. Ms. Scopaz: Could I suggest that you put it in writing to the Planning Board? Mr. Israel: You see it is actually owned by one of -the owners who is going to prosper by me putting in that road it is owned by Dorothy Cook, who I bought my property from, who gave me my right-of-way in my deed but she wrote it in at closing but it was off the assessment rolls. I basically put it back on the assessment rolls .so she is going to be pretty mad at me so she' ll let me buy it from her at a nominal fee. So I think that is what I 'm going to .try to do. The other question I have because we are going to start playing with this golf course again is, the open space of the golf course is:,-.going to ... . . . Is there any specific form of ownership that you guys want to see it in. Is it 'going to be a separate lot or is it going to be something that is going to. be owned by a homeowner' s association? What would be easiest? Mr. McDonald: In my opinion, we are way so early in this that we don't even know if we can do this under the code and you are asking us about the kinds of ownership. I don't know what kind of' limitations are going to be placed on this or if you are going to request a change of zone or if you are going to come in and ask for variances. I don't know what you are going to come in and ask for to tell you the truth, and I "m not sure you do. I know you are trying to move this ahead. Mr. Israel: I pretty much have talked the owners into saying we need to make this into a public golf course not only to get it through but in order for it to survive, it is going to have to be public. We are not going to be like the Hamptons where they find people for $100,000 and find a hundred of them right off the bat. I think we can safely say that we can open it to the public,. we need the public and the other thing now that we are considering before we start-this application or, are we better off to stay with this fee simple subdivision or are we better off to make it a condominium so now it is a corporation that owns the whole thing and sells apartments or shares etc. to create it as far as the living portion of it and then still PLANNING BOARD 40 DECEMBER 9, 1991 control this one major piece or are we better off to just wrestle with this open space law? If we do wrestle with the open space law, am I better off to stay with the perimeters that as Tong as the one .hundred homeowners own the land that I have to set up maybe some kind of leasing arrangement so that they can do that and then I will try to make it conform to your system as best as possible. . That is why we are not looking for excessive density here, we are looking for the exact density that is allowed under the current zoning. Mr. Orlowski: You would be talking more of an attached housing type. Mr. Israel: No, it would still be single and separate homes but it would be condominium ownership versus a subdivision. Mr. McDonald: I think generally, and I am not speaking from the planning standpoint but I think the condominium concept the Town gets hit, it doesn't get the tax roll that it wants. Mr. Ward: He is not presenting that, he is presenting single and separate lots. You are saying a homeowners association has the right to own the property. Mr. Israel: I don't think anybody except for this first discussion or this first hearing or maybe the land. trust is buying some kind of thing and now all of sudden you are selling off a piece of land that was suppose to be open . space just from this brief discussion. If that can happen, then I can create a separate golf course entity, O.K. , which would be the stronger of the item to do because it could stand by itself and not burden the homeowners if it goes where it costs money versus where, if it is a homeowners association then it will end up being responsible for it if it does go under then you are going to see this whole enrol. Mr. McDonald: Technically, the ownership is not our decision. I think the number one problem is that the open space law does not allow him to have this use on it. Mr. Ward: What happens if you took this property and he presented it and says this is my park and recreation space. Mr. McDonald: But, this is a large property and has a mandatory cluster in it so we would do a technical cluster with a large park and playground. Park and playground is for the benefit of the people who live in the subdivision only although he could dedicate it to the Town in general. Mr. Ward: For the people there, yes, they would own' it. Mr. McDonald: And then they would have it open as a public golf course. PLANNING BOARD 41 DECEMBER 9, 1991 Mr. Ward: Nobody chases anybody out of their park if they come into their subdivision. Mr. McDonald: A really .big park. Everyone talking. Mr. Israel: The other thing is I can fight and get a zone change to make it a hamlet density under the provisions that this is the subdivision that. is going to be done in there and under that section of the code, I don't need to cluster. Mr. Ward: Well, after you brought it up last time, I read through the code and I said if I was doing it how would I do it? I feel that going the recreation park route is the way to go. Mr. McDonald: Interesting way to look at it. That would mean it would put it entirely in this office. Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to think about that? Mr. Israel: Who owns the property under the .park and recreation under that law? Mr. Ward: It's a homeowners association. Every once and a while you see a park on like the one in East Marion, Reese' property. The park and playground is on the shore front on the sound. Well that was the homeowners associations park, it wasn't the publics park. There are ,minimums for park and recreation but there is no maximum. Mr. Israel: Can you pay a park fee per lot? Everyone talking. Mr. McDonald: You did on the basis of the appraisal, right? - Mr. Israel: I guess so. Mr. Orlowski: I have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski. Being there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting .was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Res,pectfully submitted, J e Rousseau PLANNING BOARD 42 _ DECEMBER 9, 1991 - - -- *Bennett Orlowski Jr. , Chairman RECEIVED AND I<ILEM 13Y TFLE' SOT1THOLD TOUTtd CL1�.E1� DATE 6 7 HOU1,11*,�a��( f Town C1,h k, Tovan of Soutlaol3