HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-01/11/1988 T D
Southold,N.Y. 11971"
.(516) 765=1938
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 198.8 _
The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on
Monday, January 11, 1988 at the Southold Town- Halt , Main Road, .
Southold at 7c30 p.m. .
Present were: - Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman
G. Richie Latham, Jr. , Member
Richard G. Ward,, Member,
Kenneth Edwards, Member _
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Melissa. Spero, Planner
Diane Schultz
Victor Lessard, Executive'-Administrator
7 :30 p.m. Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. , Agent, Mr. Jack Hart, Esq.
and Mr. Richard Carr, applicant, site plan for. Marina Bay
Club located. .at .New Suffolk;
r
Mr. Raynor: Mr. Carr is unable to attend the meeting tonight.
We're here to respond to any questions the board may. have derived
from the environmental impact statement as well as the input with
regard to the draft environmental impact statement. I should note
we are going to go forward and voluntarily furnish the board with
a final environmental impact statement whether or not the board
deems that necessary. We're going to furnish the board with a
final environmental impact statement on a voluntarily basis pri-
marily because during the alloted time .we have received from the
board via the boards secretary, Diane, who we thank for furnishing
all this information. One hundred and eleven items have been
requested for response. These will be forth coming the completion
of which will probably be sometime in the early part of March.
Mr. Orlowski: Alright, before we go any further, the board has
reviewed all the comments that we."'ve had and we've .-gone over
it with Ms. Scopaz. Would the board like to make. any comments
before I turn this over to Ms. Scopaz'-and we go over all her
comments which we have reviewed?
Planning Board Page 2 January 11, 1988
Board: Would like to go over Ms. Scopaz comments first.
Ms. Scopaz : I think it would be best Mr. Chairman if I read
through the items as they are listed in the comments and then we
can discuss it. I will address the items as they appear in the
executive summary.
1. Although the- actual -building heights will not exceed 28
feet; they will appear to be higher than the surrounding
buildings because they will be placed on about 4 to
5 feet of fill. The document does not state how the
parking area will. be graded and landscaped to
ameliorate the 3 to. 5 or 6 foot difference in site
elevation between..the subject property and the
neighboring properties including First Street. A site .
grading and road profile should be included with the
document. The profile analysis should show the
north, south, east -and west elevations.
2. The document is neither consistent nor clear in its
description of the proposed. seating capacity of the
restaurant. Page 2. 7 indicates that there will be .a
private .dining room for twenty people. There is -no
mention of this room on. page 1. 1. Also, neither page
indicates the seating capacity of the proposed outdoor
seating area.
3 . The parking calculations should include employee
parking requirements when the site is operating
at capacity .(e.g. mid-summer weekend., transient
slips full, meeting rooms and restaurant booked
for a conference or mid-day reception) . Handicapped
parking should also be shown on the site plan.
4. . .. An analysis of the soils tests . that were taken of the
marina bottom (Appendix B) should be done and placed
in the. body of the document. Reference should be made
to the significance of the findings, particularly with
regard _to heavy metals and pesticide residues . If
significant quantities of toxic substances exist, the
document should address the following concerns:
a. How will the dispersion of toxic materials in
the water be mitigated "during the dredging opera-
tion?
b. Should the "contaminated" portion of the dredge
spoil be used for fill or should it be disposed
. of in a more environmentally acceptable manner?
Planning Board Page 3 January .11 , 1988
5. The past use of this site as a marina and submarine base
may be the causative factor in the presence of heavy metal:
on the marina bottom. The proposed expansion of the marinE
further out into the bay raises the question of whether the
degradation process will be repeated._ Mitigative measures
to help prevent such degradation should be discussed.
6 . Removal of 3300 cubic yards of topsoil and loam will re-
quire a mining permit from the Town Board. What provisionE
will be made to provide- adequate topsoil for landscaping?
7. The document and the site plan should state what propor-
tion of the 500. feet of bulkheading will be .new and which
portion will •be replacement. The site plan should also
show the existing shoreline as well as the proposed bulk-
heading line. The present and proposed elevations of the
beach area at the southerly part of the project should
also be shown.
8 . - The location of the sewage pumpout station is, shown next
to the fueling dock. The document does not address how
this system will work. Will it be connected directly
with the sewage treatment plant? Could another pumpout
station be placed near the permanent slips to encourage
its use by those boat owners who tend to be stationery .
or use. the boat as a weekend home?
9 . The document should address the hazards associated with
placing two 10, 000 gallon fuel storage tanks underground,
particularly ground that is likely to be saturated with
water. The alternative of placing the tanks above-ground
and away from the boat slips should be discussed.
10. The document should also discuss how accidental:.fuel
spills at the fueling dock, the fuel tanks and within .
the boat storage- building will be contained.
11. The support utility building does not- observe the 500 '
buffer. required by New York State, as mentioned on page
4. 38. The type of construction should be noted. (Type
5 construction may not exceed one story in height. )
12. The document should discuss the pros and cons of the
two types of -sewage treatment plants that could be in-
stalled. Percolation tests and soil borings should be
taken on the site to determine whether the ground will
be able to handle the projected load of approximately 17 , 000
gallons per day throughout the year, in addition to .
any 6" rainfall runoff that may drain into the projected
39 leaching pools. Provide drainage calculations.
13. The boat storage building may not house the shower, laundry,
and Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant under Type 5
construction requirements. If another type of construc-
tion is being proposed, the document should state this.
i r Planning Board Page 4 January 11, 1988
14. The site plan shows parking spaces in the path the travel-
lift must traverse from the slip to 'the boat storage build-
ing. This is not acceptable site design.
15. The leaching pool system is designed to handle 2" "rainfall.
It should be designed to handle a 6" rainfall. - Under no
circumstances should stormwater overflow be allowed to
drain into the-Bay except through a filtration system de-
signed to prevent the introduction of particulate matter
into Bay waters. .
16 . The document should incorporate into the discussion on
the reverse osmosis water treatment system the following
information:
a. Salinity, pH, and general composition of the water
pumped from the well.
b. Salinity; .pH, and general. composition of the reject
water at the point of discharge into the Bay. The
temperature of this reject water should also be
stated.
C. Probable impacts . of . the introduction of reject water
on the marine ecosystem surrounding the outfall pipe
should be discussed. The discussion should include
the effects of temperature differences and force of dis-
charge at outfall pipe, as well as salinity differences.
d. Explanation of why well site was chosen.
17. The proposed configuration of the marina entrance will
increase boat traffic in the' area between Schoolhouse
Creek and Captain Marty' s: fishing station. The naviga-
tional .hazards.. that .may result should be addressed in
the document.
18. The document states that the southerly beach line needs
to be stabilized, but provides no evidence in support of
this.. . .Will •bulkheading this beach have any negative
impacts on the. stability of- the remainder of the shoreline
to the south and west?
19. The discussion of the, sewage treatment facility should
include the following information:
a. Definition of Class GA groundwaters as per New York
State.
b. Definition of difference between Total Dissolved
Solids and suspended solids effluent concentration.
� r
Planning Board Page 5 January 11, 1988
20 . The question of ownership of the underwater land should
be discussed in depth. The site. plan does not include
a complete metes and bounds (survey) description of the
property and the underwater land. The terms of the
New York State grant should be presented in the body
of the document.
It should be noted that the Suffolk County Tax Maps
show the underwater lands adjacent to this project
as being in the ownership of Southold Town.
The scale of this project must be given careful considera-
tion. There are two factors that must be addressed: the size
of the proposed restaurant/conference facility and the size
of the marina. Both have their separate impacts on the land
and the water.
The restaurnat' s size is the determinant of the volume of
salt water that will need to be treated, the volume of sewage that
will need to be treated and disposed of, and the number of park-
ing spaces that will be required. The storage facility and the
permanent slips in the marina are lesser determinants of those
items.
The marina and 'its operation will.-determine the degree
of environmental impacts on the bay bottom and ecosystem.
It is suggested that the final environmental impact
statement address a scaled down version of this proposal, one that
provides for more landscaping, better interior site design,
and more compatab-le architecture.
l ( .
Planning Board Page 6 January 11, 1988
Mr. Jack Hart: If we can be furnished with a copy of that we will be
happy reply. We have addressed some 111 comments from-the--public and-.- . .
I gather also from the Planning Board. All of those are being considered
and will be answered by the experts Mr. Carr has hired. I have attended
a meeting which lasted, as Henry did, most of the day in which these very
subjects were discussed at length. You will get it all in writing and that
will be in the final impact statement which will be furnished to the board
by the applicant.
Mr. Orlowski: At this time, and we've discussed it, and have gone over
all the comments, rather than you preparing the final environmental impact
statement and having a slanted statement,. we would"l ke .to -prepare'-the
final environmental impact statement.
Mr. Jack Hart: Mr. Chairman if we might we would like to be able to respond
to the questions.
Mr. Orlowski: We would like you to respond to all of those questions before
we start .as it would only be fair. We would then like to start it and of
course we would bill the applicant for the cost.
Mr. Jack Hart: We of course have no objection provided there is an impartial
person or firm preparing such a statement.
Mr. Orlowski: Definitely.
Mr. Jack Hart: That of course we would concur with. I think there is a
limitation on the amount of money we can pay and I think that's fixed by
law-and I believe the limitation is about $2,000.00.
Mr. Henry Raynor: What type of time frame do you preceive for your series
of questions pertaining to the environmental impact?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, nothing would get started until we have all your
comments back.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman if I may, for the benefit of the board and also
the general public; I could outline the alternatives for the board in as
so far what the next step could be .if you would like. '
Mr. Orlowski: Sure.
Ms. Scopaz: OK, basically the board has two options, one is to require
things on the environmental impact statement, the final environmental
impact statement written on the site plan that was submitted with the
draft. Exactly 'as the plan proposed. The board 'can either. request the
applicant prepare the impact statement or the board an decide that the
town will prepare the final impact statement. We have two options there.
The second alternative is that the board can request a supplemental draft
environmental impact statement based on alternative scaled down project
or version of a proposal. Those would be the three actual possibilities.
+ r
Planning Board Page 7 January 11, 1988
Mr. Richard Ward: I have a question for the applicant basically since
there's been an overwhelming, at this point, response from the people in
the area in the terms of the scale of the project. Is it a reality that
you'ret,going to consider the scaled down version?
Mr. Hart: Certainly with respect to the size of the restaurant facility
that there has been some public response made by Mr. Carr to that and he
has said yes we'll scale it down. Now of course there's an economic
engine that runs this whole thing and the economic engine has got to fit,
in other words in order for this thing to be successful, and I assume
everybody wants it to be successful, they don't want a skeleton out there.
There is a certain size that got to be met and that's an economic;,engine
that runs the size of the marina. Those determinates are certainly factors
that are going to be considered by Mr. Carr in proposing any alternatives.
Mr. Richard Ward: I guess my question is are you better off to persue
the overview with the enlarged project as it stands now or are you better
off-:addressing what you see as your scaled down project? There may be
some advantages doing that because then you're both addressing something
that's more compatable.and is of interest to the community and to the site.
and in fact do a quicker and better job for everyone involved and rather
than going thru an academic process of looking at something that is far
beyond the capacity of the site.
Mr. Raynor: I would ask you as to what site plan your addressing to?
Mr. Ward: , Page 1 and 2.
Mr. Raynor: O.K. because the initial site plan had designated some things
that we already said on behalf of the applicant it will be changed. For
instance, number one the original proposed restaurant complex was a
seating capacity of 450. That's now been scaled down to 225..and 75
on the outside and that's seasonal. 'One:)of the comments that came
forward out of several of the meetings was the removal of the sewage
treatment plant -from the support building over into the storage building.
This has also been done so actually, it's an on going amendment type of
sequence that we've been addressing publih--comments--with.
Ms. Scopaz: Unfortunately, if I may, I would like to just mention one
thing s6-ayou're. aware of it. The way the seqra process is set up, the
board has to review the draftcenviro-nmental impact statement in relation,
to the plans submitted with it and it cannot entertain amendment to that
plan except as part of the supplement of DEIS. That is one reason why
we have not been able to loo.kc;at subsequent amendments.
Mr. Raynor: I would submit to the board as we have already started to
address already hlhundred andselduensof these itemsoon the final environ-
mental impact statement that we continue to do same round that skeleton
out and address any further concerns of the board at that time.
Planning Board Page 8 January 11, 1988
Mr. Hart: I don't want to run into a technical snag though, I want to be
sure I understand what your saying and that is that what you want to see
is the final without any alternative, Its that correct?
Ms. Scopaz: No, I saying that the amendment that Mr. Raynor is referring
to has been requested as part of a supplemental DEIS. They are not for a
final they are simply amendments that were brought in. The board must deal
with the site plan and the impact statement upon which refers to that site
plan. It cannot look at this document and ,lo.oktatlaoinap that doesLi't meet
up with this document.
Mr. Hart: So what you saying is you want aosupplemental DEIS too.
Ms. Scopaz: I not saying that, I'm saying that the board has the option
that's one of the options the board legally has.
Mr. Raynor: We can very readily rename what we're concerning as a final,
as a supplemental if that's an alternative to satisfy the board.
Mr. Ward: No I was just saying that you might be able to if in fact with
the public input you've gotten to date that you felt it was going to be
scaled down anyway that maybe you should go in that direction. Go to the
scaled down project for the DEIS rather than going for this seating what
ever your doing which you know your probably not going to pursue anyway.
All I'm saying is why go through an academic exercise if you can zero in
on a specific scope and project that�-saa-_reaiityaand;imore compatible to
the community.
Mr. Raynor: We would most certainly rather reclaim the supplemental and
address the issues.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, thats I would proceed with now, address alltthe_issues
that are brought forth now and go from there. If it comes to be scaled down
then we might be able to handle it different or leave it as is we will proceed
with the final Environmental Impact Statement which we will produce here.
Mr. Hart: O.K. , what we will do then is we will respond to all the comments
that have been made a we will amend the plan to show what is minimally
feasible from the economic standpoint.
Mr. Orlowski: I think we'll make our decision after that.
Ms. Scopaz: If you decide to exercise that option, we will need correspondence
from you saying that that is what you would like to do. The board action on
the extension of the time within DEIS. We'll do that by the next meeting, we'll
take care of that..
Mr. Orlowski: O.K. we'll do that by the next meeting.
Mr. Raynor: Thank you very much.
PLANNING BOARD Page 9 January 11, 1988
7:45 p.m. Ms. Dolly Snyder and Mel Gonzalez to discuss the pending sub-
division to be known as "Soundview Estates" for 23 lots on
56 acres at Albertson Lane, Southold.
Mr. Gonzalez: What we have here is a subdivision for Southold. We have a
couple of items we would like some feedback from your board which we
discussed with Ms. Scopaz in the past. Just recently over the holidays
I received a letter from the board and .Ms. Scopaz about duck ponds and vernal
areas. They asked that it be staked and incorporated into continuous space
in the plan if possible. I met with my engineer and he asked me to ask the
board if you could possible elaborate on what you mean by us staking. As
you see we show the pond on the subdivision and he would like to know why
we need to have someone go out there and stake.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, number one, I think the board in our letter of August
has requested that we prepare a map showing a cluster subdivision. We would
like it done in a cluster. In the cluster we would have to deduct any
welands or anything else that is in there.
Mr. Gonzales: Mr. Chairman does that mean you want to see a clustering
are you going .to weigh the two and decide which one you're going to go with
or do you prefer to see a cluster.
Mr. Orlowski: We would like to see a cluster. Does the board have any other
questions?
Ms. Dolly Snyder: Can I just ask you one thing? Since I am the property
owner and I feel that what I would .like to give you and the Town is something
that would benefit both sides. If you want to cluster this, you're going to
take away an awful lot of what would be beautiful views for the people living
there. If you put the plots the way we have them designed now, as you both
know, Arshamomaque Pond is to one end and straight .ahead of you is the sound.
If they were to, be on the proper height level, everyone could enjoy the beauty
of what nature gave us. If you're going to ask for clus,ter maps you're going
to go into almost an ugly pattern, no offense to anyone, but maybe you're
not aware of how this piece sits. The piece sits with North Road, a lot
of frontage, with a beautiful sound in front of it. The way it goes down
Albertson and through Colony and across Bayview, this whole V shape would
fact the creek. So by the cluster that was suggested by Ms. Scopaz originally,
it denies a lot of them to such a view. This doesn't hurt anybody at all by
the way its layed out, its layed out not infringing on anyone, its layed
out within your zoning ordinance book. If anything, our plats are larger
than you 80,000 square feet required. We-'•re not putting them on smaller
plats, one of the questions ,that Mr. Gonzales was going to ask the board
tonight, if anything, was to say could we in fact go by your 80,000 square
foot minimum? Cluster is almost a sinful thing to do to this piece of
property.
PLANNING BOARD Page 10 January 11, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: I don't think that's so. We haven't looked at any maps that
have been designed that way.
Ms. Snyder: Well, I wish you would. We've submitted several. I wish the
board would look at this.
Mr. Orlowski: Cluster
Ms. Snyder: No, not at all. We were told it never reached the board and it
would not until we reached certain specifications. We have come up with them,
we were asked the drainage calculations. This last letter pertaining to a
certain plant or whatever, was only sent during December. We've been, for
several months, attempting as our letters to Ms. Scopaz department is aware
of. This is the first time we've had a chance to come before you to get your
actual input. If you would be kind enough, now that you have never received
this, to really look at it and take into consideration the way .these plats
are layed out, and read your ordinance book, we are meeting your requirements_
You're requesting a cluster, and I could understand it really if it didn't
have four entire road frontages. If it didn't have the view of two bodies
of water. Why should the people be penalized who are going to buy this?
Mr. Orlowski: I don't think anybody will be penalized. The density is going
to stay the same. We feel that in clustering we'll reserve some open space
in that area and if it is done right, and the layout done properly, the views
will be preserved and protected for your'lots. arid the open space will also
be left. This board can mandate cluster.
Ms. Snyder: I realize that.
Mr. Orlowski: We asked back in August to show us a sketch of the concept. We
have not received it. I know you talked to Ms. Scopaz many times and never
has the boards one question been answered. That is to look at a sketch map
showing a cluster. I think if-.you p;.rsue it you may find it to be a lot
different than you think. Does the board have any comment on this layout?
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman I have a question. You had mentioned something
about wetlands and I had spoken to Gene Gilman, Regional Director, Flood Plan
Manager, Department of New York State Environmental Conservation. It was
determined that the parcels are clear of wetlands and out of the Department's
juristiction. If' they indicate that there are no wetlands and you stated
that there possibly are wetlands, do we have to perceive that issue?
Mr. Orlowski: Well, the Trustees also have some questions that will have
to be answered. We will be sending it over to the Trustees for their
comments. There comments weigh a lot more here than the DEC so we'll
have to wait for those. In addressing it before you. get that far, I think
this board, if I'm not mistaken, would like to see a cluster layout.
� S
PLANNING BOARD Page 11 January 11, 1988
Ms. Snyder: Could you please tell me, you all have the maps of the proposed
site plan here, what is offensive to you here? Considering these are such
large parcels, we're not speaking of small parcels, we're speaking of two
plus acres which is a nice size piece of land and four road frontages.
What, one at a time, I really feel, could you kindly tell me why you can't
accept it as it is? Why are you demanding cluster? What's your justi-
fication? We have a lot of land, you're not on a postage stamp.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, the reason for adopting the mandate cluster was
to preserve open space in a fair and reasonable way. The density will
not be lessened by clustering, but we will gain half of that in open
space. I feel that there will be no problem in laying this out in
cluster and both of us, the Town and yourself, coming out.
Mr. Gonzalez: You have some property ranging elevations here ponds
shown from elevations one or less to high areas of twelve. Obviously,
these low lying areas are natural drainage areas and they should be
used for the open space plus your development on the high ground. You're
going to have nothing but problems with developing septic systems on
these properties that are low lying areas. I have a question as far as
the water, the duck ponds. As you can see I have located within a recharge
basin I wanted to get some feedback on that as far as how the board feels.
Mr. Ward: Well' there's a very good possibility that you wouldn't have to
dig a recharge basin, you may go into bonding areas that may retain the
water.
Mr. Gonzales: In other words, natural drainage areas spoil it.
Mr. Ward: There are some nice advantages actually for the cluster if
you consider it. I don't think it would be• depermental to your views,
I think you could use some of the high ridges in here and I think you
would find you'd -have a better plan.
Ms. Snyder: What do you consider clustering? In other words when you
say clustering, how much space are you putting to each.home? Let's
understand it now so we don't have to waste anymore time. Hopefully,
this cluster we bring before you we will not have to come back before
you again.
Mr. Ward: 40,000 square foot lots, which would leave about half of this
property open space.
Ms. Snyder: If you were going to buy a home and you were going to buy
a house that was on two acres, X amount of sideage on" your lot and you
were then going to reduce lot, would you like to live on the 40,000?
Isn't that why the Town updgraded it from one acre to two to give people
more room?
Mr. Ward: I think you'll find the upgrading was done through density
and population reasons not for a way of life. People want to buy a
five acre lot there are plenty around. What we're dealing with here
is preserving some fragile areas and you have some low lands you're
going to have problems with health services on some of these low lands.
PLANNING BOARD Page 12 January 11, 1988
Mr. Ward: You can still hold your density, you could have a better
layout from the environment point of view. You can save half the
property. If every lot opened up into open space, the feeling is still
the same possibility even greater .
Ms. Snyder: Could they be more towards the perimeter of the property?
Mr. Ward: This is for your and your designer to come up with. We're not
dictating exactly where your open space is.
Ms. Snyder: You call it cluster and that is on a 40,000 square foot lot.
Mr. Ward: Obviously, you should design it in sympathy with what you
have and certainly you want to take advantage of the views you have.
Ms. Snyder: O.K. thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Board to set Monday, January 25, 1988, 7:30 p.m. for
the next regular Planning Board Meeting-
Motion -made and seconded.
Vote. of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Mr. Orlowski: We now have all the minutes up to date.
Vote to approve the minutes of the following Planning Board Meetings:
December 16th, - 1985
November 24, 1986
December 22, 1986
January 12, 1987
February 9, 1987
February 23, 1987
March 9, 1987
March 30, 1987
April 27, 1987
May 11, 1987
December 14, 1987
December 1, 1986, Special meeting.
Motion made by Richie Latham, seconded by Ken Edwards.
Vote 'of the -Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Edwards, Ward
PLANNING BOARD Page 13 January 11, 1988 ,
Vervenoitis and others
SCTM# 1000-54-3-21. 1
Mr. Orlowski: Next,- we have Vervenoitis and others, Board to take final
action on this proposal following a. public hearing. The proposal:�.is for
four lots on 12 acres �on Horton's Lane in Southold: Is there anyone
here representing Vervenoitis?
Mr. Garrett Strang: Yes, I am.
Mr. Orlowski: I know it's in the covenants filed that they know nothing
about any other subdivision.
Mr. Garrett Strang: There was never a request made, to the best of my
knowledge.to. that aspect, of the covenants and restrictions, I don't
believe that that's a problem.
Mr. Orlowski: OK
On a motion made by Mr. Latham and seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the Chairman
to endorse the minor subdivision of Vervenoitis, subject a;.covenan.t .of no further
subdivision. Located at Horton's Lane, Southold. . SCTM# 1000-54-3-21. 1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Mr. Latham: I in_.perp.etuity .
Mr. Strang: , I think any further subdivison would make the lots create
a substandard lot.
Mr. Orlowski: Right. No, it's usually a standard a procedure. I thought
you had been notified. I noticed it wasn't in the covenants and restrictions.
Mr. Strang: There wasn't any notification. It wasn't in any of the
correspondence that he had received. Thank you.
All ayes for no further subdivision.
George and Irving Newman
SCTM# 1000-19-1-15
Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have George and Irving Newman, Board to consider
a request for an extension on the sketch plan approval pursuant to the
request of the attorney for the applicant. This proposal is for 4 lots
on 16 acres at Main Road, Orient.
Mr. Latham: ''(In-audible)
PLANNING BOARD Page 14 January 11, 1988
Mr. Orlowski: This. is the first request for an extension.
Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Chairman if I may address the Board on this application.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes.
Ms. Scopaz: The applicant is asking the Board to extend site plan approval,
sketch plan approval, that has been granted on a 4 lot subdivision on 16.4
acres in Orient. The approval has been granted in April of 1987. And as
you know sketch plan approval is good for 6 months and it expired on
October. What the application is asking is for a retroactive extension
from the October 27 to make a determination for the future. Just to give
you some background, the applicant has received approval from the
Suffolk County Health Services for 4 lots. YOu have in front of you a
map with a stamp on it, the HEalth Department stamp on it. Approval was
subject to the Covenants and Restrictions which pertain to two things,
one is the• need for filtering the ground water due to the excessive
concentration of aldacarb in the water and ,second, the need for fill
and the three pool sewage disposal due to the shallow depth to the
ground water. I would like to make one recommendation to the Board
and that is that the position of the road on this subdivision be
reconsidered. The property is bordered on the east by farmland which
has been preserved on the Farmland .Preservation Program. .I have here
a sketch of the tax map showing in orange the farmland,,.�the property
in the farmland program. And the applicant . . .at the moment the plan
shows the road running along the side the farmland property. Along
the property owned by the Nature COnservancy. The Planning Board two
months ago approved a minor subdivision adjacent to this property
under the name of Hoey, a modified set-off, this is the
application and this here is the Hoey subdivision.
Mr. Latham: Right. . .West. . .
Ms. Scopaz: Now, under the subdivision which has been endorsed by the
Town, there was provided for a 50' right-of-way as an access to the
331acre parcel in back. Which is joining Mr. Newman's property.
If we leave the existing road where it has been should be the..tequired
connection through the potential interior circulation or we could
relocate the road' to the western boundary line.-:.I am recommending
that the road be located to the western boundary line mainly because
it would proclude construction of the road and road run off being
in close proximity to wetland property that is under the Nature
COnservancy jurisdiction. It would just seem to me that we should
protect this sensitive area that the Planning Board should look at
putting the road further away it might have less of an impact and also
considering future interior circulation if the :31,acre parcel adjoining
property develops. Next to the Hoey property is Lula Mae Latham's
property now the southern part of that lot has been accepted by the
Town's Farmland Preservation Program, but the northern part is now
in separate ownership under someone else is available for development
and the owner has been in to talk to me about subdividing his land
and the adjoining property owner next to Weber who is north of
Lula Mae Latham is Terry and there is also been some indication
PLANNING BOARD Page 15 January 11, 1988
from them that they may be interested in coming in for a subdivision.
So I am suggesting that we look at future' r'oad patterns. The last
comment that I would like to make is that the right-of-way shown on the
sketch plan that originally has received approval of 25 ft. wide and
what has been determined is that they should be 50 ft. wide. That
change should be made on the new map.
Mr. Latham: The last time the applicant was here, I asked him about
the State. The State is interested in the property surrounding Hallocks
Bay and he said he had not heard from the State but I'm sure he has now.
All these wetlands and I don't know what else surround the bay. I would
like to find out what the State thinks about this.
Ms. Scopaz: I understand that there will be a meeting with the State.
Mr. .Latham: They're working on it now, I believe they are appraising
the land. We don't want to raise the price to the State if they want
to buy it.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, other than the road placement the layout itself
and the density is no problem. The sketch is not an automatic approval
of anything.
Ms. Scopaz: You could ask for a revised map. The board should be aware
there is also a letter in the file from the applicant stating that they
or requesting that they not be asked to comply with the requirements that
the road standards up to 20 to 28 feet depending on the size of the sub-
division. That issue is I think a separate issue that should be resolved
after the determination is made as to the placement of the road or right-
of-way. The second thing is that the lot areas that are shown on that
map include the 25 foot right-of-way. If you delete the right-of-way
from the calculation, so for instance, let's say at some projected point
in the future, the developer or the property owner decides to dedicate
the road to the Town you would still need a 50 foot right-of-way. Each
lot would be 2.5 acres which is still in the allowable density in Orient
and I don't think it.'would jepordize their health department permit.
The health department permit .is for four lots. Moving the right-6f-way
the health department approval but you might want to consider the other
options that Mr. Latham brought up.
Mr. Orlowski: Something that's expired I'm not going to worry about
extending. There's a lot of good comments here and we will review them.
Hillcrest Estates Section I
SCTM # 1000-13-2-(8.3,8.3628.10)
On motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board extend a letter of credit
for one year- with required improvements to be completed within 6 months.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Ward, Edwards, Latham
r �
PLANNING BOARD Page lh January 11, 1988
Harbor Lights Section 4
SCTM # 1000--79-417.2-17.9
-Mr. Orlowski: The above subdivision was inspected by the Town Planner and
Administrative Assistant on Thursday, January 7, 1988. As per the inspec-
tion, we noted that the bubble basin .or siphon structure had not been
constructed. This was stipulated in teh 9/23/87 report from Cornelius
heffernan, Consulting Inspector, which the Board had requested compliance
with, and referred to the applicant on 11/27/87 with covering letter. It
-was also noted that the berms as stipulated in a subsequent report dated
October 15, 1987 from the Inspector, which the Board also had requested
compliance with, have been constructed. There were three berms placed
perpendicular to the propsed roadway (for Section 5, which has not re-
ceived final subdivision approval yet) and one placed parallel to the
North side of the proposed roadway to the south of the point where the
outfall pipe discharges to the recharge area. It could not be determined
if the disturbed area had been seeded due to the deep snow cover. Based
on the fact that the bubble basin has not been constructed, release of the
letter of credit at this point in time, is not recommended.
On motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham
RESOLVED that the Southold Town�'Planning Board approve for acceptance the
statement of findings with regard to the improvements in this major sub-
division at Southold.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Ward, Edwards
On a motion made by.'Mr. Ward;• seconded by Mr. Edwards it- was .
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, January 25, 1988
at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time
and place for a public hearing on the question of approval of this minor
subdivision at Mattituck. For swap with Thorton Smith.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Ward, Orlowski, Latham, Edwards
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the sketch map of
Calvin Rasweiler'.s sketch map for 24 lots on 55.9 acres located in Laurel.
Vote of Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Edwards, Latham, Ward
On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Latham
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set-off
of John Sepenoski, located at County Route 48, Southold.
Vote of Board: Ayes: Edwards, Orlowski, Ward, Latham
. Q
` Y
PLANNING BOARD Page 17 January 11, 1988
Brewer Yacht Yard
SCTM # 1000-43-3-2
Mr. Orlowski: Would like to review this. We have quite a few questions.
Ms. Sgopaz: I.'have some -comments. and?_I think we'll have to ask the
applicant to bring in some more supporting documents. -We._don'..t have
any copies of the required permits from the NYSDEC or the Atmy. Corps
of Engineers:and we have not received a copy of the trustees determina-
tion. so I have nothing to compare a decision with. .
Mr. Orlowski: We'll hold this one until the next meeting.
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, February 25,
1988 at 7:45 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, as the time and place for
the public hearing on the proposal for the construction of a 75 unit
motel located at County Route 48, Greenport. Public'-comments through
February 11, 1988.
Vote of Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Ward, Latham, Edwards
On motion made by Mr. Ward, :seconded by Mr. Latham
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the site plan of
Mullen Motors to construct an addition on the existing building to be
used for a showroom located at::Main Road, Southold, subject to sidewalk
and curbing and reviewed by the Town and the State.
Vote of Board: Ayes; Ward, Edwards, Latham, Orlowski
On motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Ward
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the FIDCO Map surveys
dated as amended August 7, 1987 (2 sheets) which have received Article 6
approval with covenants as noted on the surveys.
Vote of Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Ward, Edwards, Latham
Steve Sanders - North Road Associates
SUM # 1000-18-4-1
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Sanders would like to come in and talk about the construc-
tion of an access road.
Mr. Bruer As an opener on this I want to thank the board for hearing us
tonight, I know we were on for the work session last Friday to be scheduled
today. The snow storm cancelled the work session and unfortunately I was
unable to 'contact my client at the time to prevent him from coming out.
I understand further that the action we are talking about is actuAlly a certain
resolution made by the board of last August dealing with the construction of
roads in minor subdivisions. I understand further that the board, at least
I've heard that the board will be discussing this resolutionr._and the particular
problems of some. minor subdivisions have existed prior to this resolution
PLANNING BOARD Page 18 January 11, 1988
Mr. Bruer: between now and the next meeting and I understand that either
this subject with Mr. Sanders might be on at that time or whatever, so I
guess what we want to do tonight is give you a little bit of our input
knowing that you're not going to make any_ decision tonight. Knowing full
well that you are going to discuss this at your work sessions in the next
two weeks and hopefully maybe this matter Mr. Sanders will be out again to
discuss this on the 25th. I understand there are some other developers
who have expressed concern. I -think there are four letters in this file
from other people dealing with this matter and they're very concerned.
I know that this is the last matter on the agenda and everybody is probably
anxious to go home. I would like to say that I have spoken to Mr. Orlowski
off the cuff session one time and said that I didn't believe in the board
imposing a 22 foot town spec road. I believe the board and the Town would
be best served if they would abide by the prior rules of the Town which
basically said that the board can require or admire all the requirements
that they can for major. This means without setting an abosolute in stone
policy the board could say in a particular case "hey this case needs a
Town road to Town specs", 22 feet, 28 feet wide. I think that the Town
would be best served if they had left it that way and possible put developers
on notice by notifying they when they get an application for a minor sub-
division notifying them that the board in the appropriate case can and will
do that. I guess what I'm saying is that with respect to my client, in
this particular instance we don't think the 22 ft. Town spec road really
should be imposed. We are one of the developers that submitted its original
application, I believe back in June or July of 1985, we received sketch
plan approval of the property I believe back in August of 1986. We have
definately been here the proposal before the board and all the thinking
before the board from this particular developer as you'll find from others.
The whole economics was based upon the roads that the board traditionally
required on my subdivision. I know that you have before you a letter
from Mr. Sanders and he's here tonight to speak. It pretty much sets, forth
not only his feelings on the matter but I believe a number of other developers
what you are talking about when you start getting a minor subdivision of ten
lots or more, I don't think you're going to have minor subdivisions any more
you've created a situation where developers must go for major. Must go for
maximum yield. Particularly when you're not talking about sensitive areas.
Must go for the maximum, you can't take, like I believe Mr. Newman has before
you, a subdivision on and I spoke-to his attorney a Janet Lesser, and she
said I could mention the fact that she said she would have been here tonight
except that she knew that this matter was posponed. A 45 acre 40 lot sub-
division would not happen if you were going to require major roads. It
was alluted to me somewhere along the line the cost of a 22 foot road is
not that much more or that must greater than a road that was required by
the board previously. Maybe the point that Mr. Sanders will comment to
you on that with respect to some very, I think, gross numbers is quite
a difference. Earlier today you had Mr. Hart here and he talked about
the economic machine. That's exactly what you have here with minor
subdivisions. Minor subdivisions; particularly the large minor subdivision
which you have 'covered into perpetuity so called for four lots is done
basically for two reasons. Having representing developers in this Town
since 1971, you do it one to save time and two to save money on the improve-
ments. You've .just eliminated the major one the economic return on the
PLANNING BOARD Page 19 January 11, 1988
economic return on the minors. -,.Why::should they give up` all this when they
have to put in a road at great cost? You're taking in our particular case
a possible road from eleven thousand to almost a hundred thousand. Again,
I assume that this is going to come up again:�on your next hearing. I want
to thank you very much for hearing me. Mr. Sanders is here.
Mr. Ward: - Did' we have .Jack- Davis -or somebody-do a •report:.as..far as the
road goes?
Mr. Sanders: We submitted that.just prior to the'."New Year. What the
problem was, we had the normal delays but also we couldn't get him -out
for some reason:: We was backed.;up and we subsequently submitted 'the
final map or the sketch plan maps.
Mr. Mund: Actually, we're here because we're scared to death of what you
might do to us with roads. After all this time and what we've put into
this to have all of a sudden. I know the resolution was last August but
we only heard about this in the last two or three months. We scared to
death of what this could do to this project.
Mr. Sanders: I would just like to say that I had somebody with some expertee
look at my map and come up with some numbers on the road. They are kind of
difficult to interput but basically the bottom line in the old standards
would have cost somewhere between $11,000 and $20,000 dollars. Right now
not knowing exactly what you're going to ask for my road costs are upward
of $80,000 to $100,000. We're looking at thirteen hundred plus. Now
obviously, economics with demand for myself and anybody else with a large
parcel the only way they can recover those costs would be to file majors
which comes back to you. You're now getting maximum yield.
Mr. Latham: You're bringing price into it now. If you're going to bring
the price of the road in you have to bring the price of the lots in.
Mr. Sanders: What I'm saying to you is one of the, reasons many of the
people who have large lots go forminor subdivisions is they save out of
pocket expenses on black top roads. It's a very simple economic decision.
If you're going to make us put black top roads in then that decision is
taken away from us and economics demands to recover the cost of that I
get the maximum yield for my lots that I can. It's not something I really
want to do anyway, I think the minimal use is better in the long term.
I'm not familar with all your names. This gentlemen mentioned tb: the woman
who was here fighting not to get a cluster, that there are many five acre
lots around. Well that won't be the case in a few years if black top is
required because you're not going to have any developers who will want to
do minors and therefore get larger lots. One of the things that is also
bothering me is that I've been in this project for so long and I'm kind
of in the end and the rules change here in the middle of the game. It's
a disturbing fact from an economic point of view. Its not necessarily
your concern but I have ,persondlly spoken to at least four or five
people who have lots larger than mine who have minor subdivisions in
some stage in fronti_of you that have said that they were not aware of
these rules that under the circumstances they would have to very seriously
PLANNING BOARD Page 20 January 11, 1988
Mr. Sanders: if not definitely refile for major subdivisions to recoup
the cost of the additional road expense. Just from the Town's point of
view I don't really know if you want to institute policy where you get
maximum yield all the time.
Mr. Orlowski: Let me say something about this .and us worrying about the
developer. I've created quite a few lots since I've been here, about
nine or ten years, and I myself bought in a subdivision. I bought a lot
and I paid a lot of money for it as did my neighbors. The developer is
around but he's out of it. I got stuck for $5,0000for electric connections
I have a road that I've got to build because its gone. It's not there
anymore, its not existing. I don't like to create a lot of lots and I'm
glad that your density is kept down, but I don't feel its right for this
board to create lots that are going to have problems in the future. Now
roads have been our biggest problem. We've been creating lots off of
these right-of-ways and in five or six years there are no right-of-ways
existing. Nobody knows who is going to fix them, nobody knows how they
are going to fix them', and there are no utilities in there, no cablevision,
no telephone and they come back to me and in some cases we're getting
lots that were unbuildable as far as wetlands being on the property. Those
people then find out they have to go to the Trustees to get their approval.
This is just another problem. So the board has just stopped and we're
setting a policy. Now the policy is we are going to build everything to
the major road specifications. I think we're going to stick with that.
I know that.,its better for you and you would save some money but in the
long run those people that are going to buy those lots or that young
couple.,if`_they can afford those lots, even if they get them for $8q,)000
or $100,000 dollars may be looking at another $10,000 to $20,000 dollars
apiece to fix that road, which will look very good up front.
Mr. Bruer: Mr. Orlowski, I don't wnat to get into what you paid for the
lot, but having represented developers and having been before you over
the years, I know for a fact that in the sale of those lots the difference
is taken into consideration. When you present a lot to a buyer and you
can show them that`:the utilities are there and all these various other
things with respect to the road he ;knows he's going to have to put it
in there. This is usually a fact in terms of the price. Yeah! if you
put all this on there maybe there wont be any affordable lots at all.
Mr. Orlowski: He may have thought he bought an affordable lot and it
isn't an affordable lot.
Mr. Bruer: Well, I don't want to get into personalities but ----
Mr. Orlowski: I think we're here to:,create a lot that are assessable
and will be assessable and will be assessable -for a long time. The
biggest problem has been access has been later on in the future.
PLANNING BOARD Page 21 January 11, 1988
Mr. Sanders: There are ways of doing that. I have a gentleman here
I would like you to give him a few moments to speak and then we'll be
finished. One of the things is I think a lot of the roads were not
built -to the standards that they were actually suppose to. be and for
whatever reasons slipped by. Also, as far as utilities and things like
that .are concerned, as a buyer somebody should ask._ Do I have electricity?
Maybe the. Town should require that electricity and things like that are
provided aside from the blacktop. I'm just addressing this as OK I'll
come back and I'll do a major if I have to the question I have in front
of you is do you want to deal with someone who has 45 acres coming to you
with a minor subdivision who is going to come back to you with 22 acres,
which they wouldn't done prior. You are going to increase that gentlemens'
road costs to maybe $70,000 to $350,000 and there isn't anyway he can
do four acres because he's never going to be able to recoup that. You
can't sell a lot for $350,000. I'm not only looking at myself but I'm,
looking at the long term aspects of what this is going to do to the Town.
Mr. Bruer: I know you are going to discuss this and this is not a time
for a decision but I just want to put in your thinking processes as you
go into your discussion during the week, two things. One, the possibility
of those applications that are before the board, and you've always done
this in the past, where you've changed the rules in mid stream, to consider
some type of a grandfathering of .those road subdivisions that were there
prior to X date. Second of all I would strongly .ask you to consider going
back to with •a'revision of your old policy rather then make it in concrete
like you have here that it-:must be this way. To say that it can be and
we might require it giving yourself latitude and flexibility to meet certain
standards rather than say it has .to be this way.
Mr. Latham: I just want to say one thing, the thing I'm thinking of is.
25 to 50 years from now, it maybe who knows some big movement by all
these homeowners to get the Town to take over all these roads.
Mr. Bruer: The voters will decide that.
Mr. Latham: I think the Town is going to-.adventually take them.
Mr. Bruer: I know this is something to throw out out you I know you're
going to be considering it and we'll be back here on the 25th to answer
any of your questions that you might have throughout the next to weeks.
Mr. Henry Mund: I live in the Town of East Hampton after some 37 years.
I'm here for two purposes, one is that I have money towards the purchase
of, an ten.-acre, brie building site in the minor subdivision of Mr. Sanders.
Back in 1960 to. 1964 'I served on the Planning Board in the Town of East
Hampton.and for 10 years as a Town Councilman.on the Town Board of East
Hampton. Most of that time chairing the Towns"Planning and Zoning Committee.
A �
Planning Board Page 22 January 11, 1988
Mr. Mund: As I look at the Town, I've watched what has happened since my
experience. I look at it now and I'm not exactly thrilled with the results.
We've had many Planning Boards during that time span and many Town Boards.
This is not a reflection on any of them, I think they all tried very hard
and I think some of them make this Planning Board look very liberal. The
fact is, we see ourselves heading for suburbia and its exactly the thing
that I wrote the preamble to the Towns comprehensive plan back in 1962,
we tried to avoid. We were very careful to state to preserve the rural
character of the Town and to insure that its open spaces were preserved
in their natural resources. These are very noble objectives and they are
probably universal in the eastern end of Long Island. The problem is
that we seem to be able to shape how things take place month to month,
year to year basis and we're able to effect the timing to a considerable
degree but we have a tremendous real estate market out there and eastern
Long Island seems to be the vocal point. I'm not so sure that the proce-
dures and policies we followed during my experiences in 1960's are adequate
to do the job if in fact we are trying to prevent a surburban however
lovely it may be. A surburban environment out here compared to one we
really envision for the eastern end of Long Island which is predomanately
rural. My point is I think, let me give you an example, your probably
familiar with the area. Thousands of acres on the western shore of
3 mile harbor. Well, right through the 1950's it was deserted. There
was just rolling wooded area, at that point it had a couple of fishing
shacks on it. It wasn't considered desirable by the local people. That
area now, of course has been developed, the developers have been down' there
some of them from the North .Fork as well, are extremely reliable. No
problem with them at all. Now, however, as this was developed through
the many years, 27 years, you go down to northwest and we find one acre
or two acre lots some perhaps three acre lots owned that are under $200
to $300 thousand dollars each. The blacktop is all in, recharged basin
and wells and we look around and we somehow have the feeling we missed
the mark. We don't have in ,northwest, 'we started from scratch back in
19603, we planned and zoned and whatever for that entire time and when
we finished we don't really have what we want. My concern is that that
sort of thing is going to happen in Southold, but in Southold Town you
still have the opportunity. You can benefit from our mistakes and -keep
that from happening. I think back as to what might be given the course
of action. I come up with some phrases that seem trite .now because they
have been used and viewed and I think the aesthetics of a particular
subdivision with rural character you may have going in, things like that
when ,you try to deal with them on a day to day basis, as you folks have
to do, its like grabbing (in-audible) I'm convinced that if they were
emphasized on a continual basis this could very well spell the difference.
The kind of development we've got on the south fork and part of which
I was involved in. You can spell the difference by doing that here.
I guess what I'm saying is the broad approach to this however expedient
it may be can actually be creating a irreversable disservice to the Town.
Its a convenient thing, its satisfying to the Board to do it, its beyond
reproach because your probably requiring ultimate instruction standards
its the sort of thing that may .be satisfying to you, but the final
analysis it creates exactly the thing our preambles of the comprehensive
plan is trying to avoid. The suggestion that was made earlier that each
subdivision be looked at individual is critical. I think that as they
are looked at you do not forget the original objective is and that is
not to forget the rural character of open space. Thank you.
Planning Board Page 23 January 11, 1988
Being no further busines to come before the Board, on a motion made by
Mr.Latham, ;seconded by Mr. Edwards, and carried, the meeting was adjourned
at 9:30 p.m. .
Respectfully submitted,
--1 f.0...JfI,Qsbuj-ii�
Dine M. Schultze, Secretary
Southold Town Planning Board
ennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE /-a7 98' HOUR 1!=1'04A
Town Clerk, Town of Southold