Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/09/1988 A, ;fir Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD'MINUTES MAY 9, 1988 The Southold Town Planning Board held a .regular meeting on Monday, May 9, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. PRESENT WERE: Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Chairman Member William Mullen,Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham Member Richard G. Ward Executive Administrator Victor Lessard Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro Secretary Jill Thorp Absent: Kenneth Edwards. ****************************** Mr. Orlowski: I would like to call ,this meeting to order. The first order of business is a public hearing (7:30) on the question of final approval for the minor subdivision of Henry Domaleski. This proposal is for 2 lots on 21.7329 acres located off Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-95-1-p/o 11. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and also proof of publication in the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is order for a public hearing. I will ask if there any objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Dan Ross: Dan Ross, from Wickham, Wickham & Bressler. We have our Health Department approval, which we work on for quite some time. Recently we have received the Suffolk County Planning Commission's comments and we are working on those. They are minor. A curb on the road onto Oregon Avenue. Point radius. Which we have requested a map and set Covenants. Which should be no problem. I would just ask that possibly approval be granted and when receive the final change. Because we have a time problem. Mr. Orlowski: You have no problem with the conditions from Suffolk County? Planning Board Page 1 May 9 , 1988 Dan Ross: No. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there that is neither pro nor con but may have some information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to this Board? Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen? Answer's of the Board: No. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz , any questions? Ms. Scopaz.: No. Mr. Orlowski: Hearing no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming. Mr. Orlowski: Board to set May 23, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time and the place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those if favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Subdivisions; finals: Blue Point Properties- Board to set Monday, May 23, 1988, for a public hearing on the final approval for this lot line change located on Fishers Island. SCTM #1000-5-1-3. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Arthur Junge- Board to authorize the Chairman to endorse the final surveys for this amended site plan located on Meddle Road (CR 48) Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-96-1-19. It has been I y Planning Board Page 2 May" 9 , 1988 amended to show everything that is existing there. Everything is in order. Mr. Latham: I'll move your endorsement. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded? Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Farmveu Associates- Board to take action on the sketch plan for this major subdivision. This proposal is on 111.672 acres located on Sound Avenue in Mattituck SCTM #1000-121-3-2. At .this time the Board should declare themselves lead agency. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward- Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Would the Board like to grant sketch tonight? Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Ward: Just a quick question on this one. Did we discuss this possibly, the road coming, rather than coming out on to Sound View to come out on Aldrich. Mr. Orlowski: There is one coming out onto Aldrich but this is what we basically designed. Mr. Ward: O.K. ****************************** 7 � Planning Board Page 3 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Beechwood Acres- Board to take action on the sketch plan for this minor subdivision. This proposal is on 7.1628 acres located on Sound View Avenue in Southold. SCTM #1000-68-4-2,3. We can approve it subject to that turn around we would like to see. Mr. Ward: Yes, between Lots 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Orlowski: Between Lots 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to approve it subject to those conditions. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Rita Brown- Board to take action on the sketch plan for this minor subdivision. This proposal is on 12.506 acres located on Oregon Road in Mattituck. At this time we can declare lead agency. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Everything is order for sketch. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Paul Matthews- Board to take action on the sketch plan for this major subdivision subject to a curving of the road and a Proper yield map. This proposal is on 69.9 acres located on Sound View Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM #1000-100-2-1. Also we i Y Planning Board Page 4 May 9 , 1988 mention taking out the open space on the perimeter, since it seems useless. Mr. Ward: Move sketch approval subject to those conditions. Mr. Mullen: Seconded. Mr Orlowski: Motion made and seconded to approve subject to. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Mohring Enterprises- Board to take action on the sketch plan subject to a 50' buffer along the North side of lots 6 and 7 and a 25' buffer along the East side of lots 3-6 and along the West side of lots 7-14. This proposal is on 36.9636 acres located on Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM #1000-113-7-19.2. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: Move for approval with those conditions. Mr. Latham: Second the motion. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Ward: Mr. Chairman, I think we might just mention that the reason that we clustered in this particular relationship was to provide the open space, which would be significant open space, to Sound View Avenue and to Cox Neck and develop the housing tighter into the site so that we would buffer the housing with the open space. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Walter Gatz and George McDowell- Board to take action on the sketch plan for this major subdivision subject. to placing the access to the open space between lots 8 and 9, swaled roads and moving the drainage area to the low portion of the property on the South ,corner. This proposal is on 30.3565 acres on Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-95-4-6/95-4-14. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: Move for sketch approval subject to those recommendations. Mr. Mullen: Second. r r Planning Board Page 5 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski; Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next order of business is 7:45 p.m. public hearing. First, Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This is an unlisted action. Everything is in order for a negative declaration. I'll entertain that motion. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Public hearing on the question of final approval for the minor subdivision of Henry Lytle. This proposal is for 2 lots on 9.06 acres located at Peconic. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman and we have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times. At this time everything is in order for a public hearing and I will ask if there .are. objections to this minor subdivision? Hearing none, are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Ms. Wickham: Abigail Wickham, for the applicant Mrs. Lytle. This subdivision is of two lots, each containing about 4. , one 4.4 and the other 4.6 acres. There are two items remaining which I would expect that you would include as a condition of your approval. One is for the elimination of a small parcel that was cut a number of years ago. 100 by 150' together with a Right-of-Way to it, which is located down at the Beach. We had a deed in the file. Mrs. Lytle is prepared to recorded as a condition of the subdivision. Eliminating the parcel from lot 2 of the subdivision and eliminating a right-of-Way to it. Merging that little in the deed of the larger parcel. The second item, as we all well know is Covenants and Restrictions and I would again that your approval would be subject to the filing of Covenants and Restrictions. I would strongly ask and would strongly object to any covenants other than those approved in your letter of December 9; 1986. Which would restrict further subdivision without the approval of the Planning Board or any successor board airing jurisdiction over subdivisions in the Town of Southold, as that language was approved Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney and approved by your Board. However, my client has instructed me, because of the time constraints in which she is under, that she would feel compelled to a further condition of the cluster subdivision if the Board was so inclined. I would strenuously object, on her behalf, to that. Her immediate need at this point is approval. Under duress she would agree to that. Other ' r Planning Board Page 6 May 9 , 1988 than that I think all the other items of the subdivision have been complete. We have attained Health Department approval and I would ask you to go ahead. I would also like to note for the record in conjunction with my statement on the covenants, that you did approve a subdivision for Gretchen Higle to for property immediately to the east. Containing a parcel of 65,000 sq.ft. , on which there was a house located on the northerly beach area and there is a 76,000 sq. ft. parcel on the upland parcel which you are now looking for a cluster.. I would just ask if you could consider. that. Thank you very much. Mr. Orlowski: Any other endorsements of this subdivision? Hearing none, any one out there that is neither pro nor con but may have any information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to the Board? Hearing none, are there any questions from the Board? Board's reply: None. Mr. Orlowski: Being no further questions, I'll declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. SEQRA Determinations: Dorman, Townsend, Mackay & Millis- Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Everything is in order for a negative declaration. SCTM #1000-18-7 & p/o8. Mr. Latham: Move it. Mr. Mullen: Negative Dec. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motions? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: RHR Realty- Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Everything is order for a negative declaration. SCTM #1000-59-3-16.1. Mr. Latham: I'll move that. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. r Planning Board Page 7 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Same with Peter Blank- SCTM #1000-27-4-p/o10.1. What is the Pleasure of the Board? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Latham: I'll abstain. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward. abstain: Latham. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Latham abstained from any discussion or vote on that. Mr. Orlowski: Too Bee Realty- Board to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SCTM #1000-50-6-5. Mr. Ward: So moved. Negative Declaration. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on .the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ****************************** Mr. Orlowski: Edward & Eileen Deutsch- Board to make a determination on the State Environmental Review Act. SCTM #1000-54-3-p/o 26 Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ****************************** Mr. Orlowski: Next, Engineer's Reports: The Cove at Southold- Board to accept and request compliance with the Engineer's report dated April 28, 1988. SCTM #1000-87-5-20. a Planning Board Page 8 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. All these reports are on file in the office if anybody is interested. Mr. Orlowski: Winds Way Building Corp.- Board to accept and request compliance with the Engineer's report dated April 27, 1988. Mr. Latham: I'll move that. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Harbor View- Board to accept and request compliance with the Engineer's report dated April 28, 1988. SCTM #1000-115-17-17. Also we should send this over and make mention a request for the road profiles and tree conservation efforts, which we had asked for before. We don't think that any further work should be done until we get this information. Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next on Discussions and Correspondence: Bond Estimate - Board to discuss proposal for Bond Estimates. Sidney Bowne's has given us a list of items that can be used put together these bond estimates. The Board has talked about it and is making a recommendation to the the Town Board that they adopt this list, and require at the final application that the bond estimate submitted r Planning Board Page 9 May 9 , 19.88 conform with this price list that will be updated every year. It should make the bonding procedure a little easier. Mr. Ward: I don't know if we have to have the Board adopt it. I think as long as we adopted it and gave it to the subdivider with a note for him to have his engineer prepare for our review, a bond estimate. utilizing these prices which we approve as a Board. I think it would simplify and cut down some of the time that our consulting agent, here presently, is spending on bond estimates. Mr. Mullen: I think we should also advise them at this time that this will be good until such and such a date. Mr. Ward: Yes, this will be adopted for 1988. I make a motion that we as a Planning Board accept these unit prices to be utilized for bond estimates and that a letter be attached to our subdivision regulations when we give it out to a- developer. So in turn they understand that they would produce the bond estimate for our review. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board;Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. ****************************** Mr. Orlowski: .Next we have Sundown Farms- Board to discuss this with the applicant. SCTM #1000-121-4-8. Mr. Stiefer is here. Joe Stiefer: I would like to put a subdivision. I had a minor before we had a fourteen acre parcel. We want to put three two acre parcels along Sound Avenue and leave a seven and three quarter parcel to remain. Mr. Orlowski: Do you want to come up and show the Board how you want to do that? Mr. Stiefer: This is the parcel that is in question now: one, two, three and this will remain as one. Mr. Ward: When this subdivision originally came in, the presentation to us was that any further subdivision that came in would be a major and road would be improved. Mr. Stiefer: Which road.would be improved? Only if the road was used. The road will not be used. These all border Sound Avenue. Mr. Orlowski: How does lots two and three get access right now. Mr. Stiefer: There is a right-of-way all the way down. Planning Board Page 10 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: How come they can't get a building permit down there. Mr. Stiefer: This road is under question because of two different surveys. We have to discuss with the Town Board. We put eleven thousand dollars into this road that was requested to approve the road. We have not gotten the right-of-way on it yet. That is an issue that is up in the air. Mr. Ward: Just generally speaking we would not be in favor of that layout. Mr. Stiefer: Why? Mr. Ward: That particular section of Sound View is a disaster down there. Mr. Stiefer: This area is fine. Over here is the disaster. This is a flat area. Mr. Ward: The whole strip in here is bad. Adding more driveways onto Sound Avenue isn't the answer. You could be coming up in here and develop here. Mr. Stiefer: How many more driveways would be added on? Would the Board be happy with one additional driveway? We have to have some type of driveway to get on and off the land. What you are doing is locking in the land. Mr. Ward: Develop the right-of-way back in like it should be and then develops the property. That is the way this whole thing is set up to begin with. Mr. Stiefer: No. This was never set up. This one was subdivided back here. This one was left open. Mr. Ward: Any future lots would be. . . . Mr. Stiefer: This one would be four. One, Two, Three, Four. We are not changing the subdivision. Mr. Ward: Well, I don't know if this Board would approve going off of Sound View. Mr. Stiefer: Why. Is there some type of a code? Mr. Ward: It is a traffic problem. Mr. Stiefer: I don't understand traffic problem. They have where they are opening up a subdivision across the way which is going right across onto the same area. You have one that was just open over here. Mr. Ward: On a road. Planning Board Page 11 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Stiefer: It is still coming onto Sound Avenue. All I am asking is for one more driveway onto Sound Avenue. Mr. Ward: Where are the others going to go? Mr. Stiefer: This one. I have my own right-of-way on here. This one has a right-of-way on it already. All we are talking about is one more driveway on Sound Avenue. Mr. Orlowski: Can they use that right-of-way? Mr. Stiefer: There is a right-of-way on the land. Mr. Orlowski: Can he use it? You already got two lots in there that they can't even get a building permit on. Mr. Stiefer: But there is still a right-of-way is there. All they have to do is trench it. Mr. Mullen: We don't see any right-of-way on the map here. Mr. Stiefer: We gave a right-of-way. Yes this one. I own the land and I will make sure there is a right-of-way available there. This is a right-of-way already. This one here, I own the land. I will make a right-of-way. You have only one access on the Sound Avenue, which is not a terrific problem. This is a flat area. Down here is where loopy. Mr. Latham: What are going to do down here. Some day you are going to have to make a road here going to there, aren't you? Mr. Stiefer: No. The Town made me make a road off here to run to my home which is back here. I have right-of-way on this side and a right-of-way on this side. Mr. Latham: Well, it didn't show anything on the map. Mr. Stiefer: No. It wouldn't show on the map. There is a right-of-way here and a right-of-way here. This would be the only one that has access to Sound Avenue. This one has a right-of-way and this one has a right-of-way. Mr. Mullen: I think we should see another right-of-way here. Mr. Ward: We can take a look at it again. Mr. Stiefer: If it is that bad than I suggest that the Town put some type of object up here for this right-of-way and this right-of-way. If the road is as bad as you. say it is. Mr. Ward: Our subdivision policy along Sound Avenue has been to allow tap streets to come in. Not lots spacing. Mr. Stiefer: We have one more lot. Planning Board Page 12 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: You tell me that you have right-of-way coming into your property or a buffer? Mr. Stiefer: No, right-of-ways. They are deeded in the deeds. On both sides. For access back here. Mr. Mullen: They go all the way through. Mr. Stiefer: Twenty five foot right-of-ways. You people made me put a right-of-way all the way to the end. Mr. Mullen: Lets take a look at it. Mr. Stiefer: We got a right-of-way here and this right-of-way,I own the property. Mr. Latham: Who is contesting this right-of-way? Not the Town? Mr. Stiefer: Not the Town. They are not really contesting the right-of-way, they are contesting the road. They are trying to use the road as a right-of-way, but meanwhile the right-of-way is there. It is available. Mr. Orlowski: So what you told the people purchased the lots, if you want it, you got to put the right-of-way there. Mr. Stiefer: That is right. I gave them the right-of-way. Mr. Mullen: How large are these lots up here? Mr. Stiefer: They are two acres apiece. Mr. Mullen: Let us take a look at it. Mr. Stiefer: I would appreciate it. Mr. Orlowski: You realize the covenants on the first subdivision is that this would be considered a major subdivision. Mr. Stiefer: As far as what. What would be the restrictions? Mr. Orlowski: All criteria's of a major subdivision would be met in this one. Mr. Stiefer: Like? Mr. Orlowski: I don't want to read them all to you now, but you can come in and find out. Let us take a look at the lot. Mr. Stiefer: O.K. Thank you. r. Planning Board Page 13 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Next we have the Shoppes at Southold- Board to discuss this application with the applicant. The Shoppes at Southold is located in Mattituck in case anybody doesn't know. Mr. Accardo: Do you gentlemen have a copy of the letter dated April 18, 1988? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Accardo: This have been going on for a long time. . . . a lot of frustration. Another plan used the Shopping Center right off the road and I had no problem going with all your requirements. On this one, I understand that Ms. Scopaz is starting her review through the mid point. That is when I received the change that would be added to the project after we, began the project. What turn out to be an original, relatively simple, small plan has become quite complex. I understand the requirements of the traffic study and your ambition to make the Town a better place. However, there is a lot of things that we just can't do on the site plan. I would like to talk to you about them now. I have addressed each of them in the letter. Let me go down the list and make it simple. The first request is to make the eight foot buffer in the back and add a four foot sidewalk. If I do that, the minimum requirement with parking is thirty five foot eleven inches. I have thirty six feet there. If I add another seven feet, virtually eliminates that entire row of parking, which is sixteen spaces that would be eliminated. I understand the desire to have a four foot curb there, but it is a very tight spot, a very tight lot. It is a odd shape. There is really no way that I can accommodate that request. That would be the first major problem we need to resolve. What is the Board's comments on that? Mr. Ward: Just one question. With diagonal parking how do you propose to put planting in a five foot strip? Mr. Accardo: The planting is in front of the diagonal parking. The planting is not incumbent upon the parking. Mr. Ward: You are showing curb lawn. You are going to show a overhang of a car. Mr. Accardo: No. On diagonal parking there is a concrete bumper that is not shown on the plan. That prevents that. Mr. Ward: You got a concrete bumper as well as a curb. Mr. Accardo: We will have a concrete bumper at a perpendicular angle to the space. Mr. Ward: That doesn't show that? Mr. Accardo: No that is not on here. But that is the way it is designed. Diagonal parking has that concrete bumper and the cars will not impose on that. Planning Board Page 14 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Ward: In addition to the curb lawn. Mr. Accardo: Yes. It stick out in the space. You have seen it in shopping centers, I'm sure. Mr. Ward: That will keep you off your five foot planter. Mr. Accardo: That will keep us off the five foot. It was noted that the increase was asked for to screen the property next door. We don't have a problem with putting whatever kind of plantings you would suggest in that buffer area. I don't think the width is going to make the difference. I think it is the type of plant. You suggested we use the pine. That is fine. We can do that, but why couldn't that be accommodated within that five feet. I don't think that the additional three feet is going to help the screening. It is the type of planting that goes in there. We are willing to do it with any type of plant you require for the screening. Imposing that four foot curb and the eight foot would virtually eliminate that back parking. Mr. Ward: You mention another one. What was that? The four foot? Mr. Accardo: The four foot sidewalk. Item number two. A curb should be placed along the rear of the building. At least four feet from the building to protect service users from the back doors in being hit by a car. I understand that but I really can't accommodate that. Mr. Ward: You have to do that one. Mr. Accardo: I have to do that one? Maybe I can move the front of the building up a little. The next one, another major issue. We would like to reduce the twenty four foot road. The drive way in front of the building that is right now being shown as a non- parking area to twenty feet. Twenty feet would make that a one way road. Anything less than twenty four feet is not acceptable as a two way road. And that would virtually cut off access to the entire lot from one entrance. You said that it is to stop people from wanting to park in front of the building. What we can do is put in bright yellow strips the way it is always done in front of a shopping center. No parking fire zone. I can't reduce that. It would be a traffic hazard. Somebody coming out of the parking spaces trying make a left or a right and another car passing by in front of the shopping center there is no turning radius. I can't do that one. That is not acceptable. Mr. Ward: I don't know whether that is hard and fast. We will look at that one as our recommendation rather than hard and fast, alright? Mr. Accardo: O.K. The three foot tree island. That is a typical dimension for a tree island in many shopping centers. Requiring it to go to six is another one that is going to cause a reduction in parking. Mr. Ward: Is this another case where you are using bumpers as well as curbs? Are you using car stops? L Planning Board Page 15 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Accardo: No. Mr. Ward: We are going to have bumpers meeting. Correct? That is where are comments are coming from. Mr. Accardo: The comment was made that it won't sustain any tree life. So that is what I was. . . Mr. Ward: The bumpers meet, it won't sustain tree life. That is true. or anything else that is in there. Mr. Accardo: Alright. I want to work with you and get this site through. I am not trying to be obstinate. Mr. Ward: So are we. Mr. Orlowski: That is why you are here. Mr. Accardo: There seems to be a failure of communication between both parties here, where things that should have been asked for, things that should have been asked for a long time ago would have made the project go a lot more smoothly. That is why I would like to get this settled tonight. O.K. we can try to increase that. Does it have to be six or can it be five feet. I can push the parking out on the ends into the planting area. Mr. Ward: You take a look on what your proposed planting is and if it is trees. You potentially have a two to two and half ,foot overhang on cars depending on what kind of car it is from your curb stop. You are kind of limited as to what you can put in a narrow planted area. Mr. Accardo: You want the sidewalk along County Road 48 to be deleted. Is there a reason. The last shopping center it was a requirement now you would like it deleted. I don't have a problem in deleting it, I just was curious. Mr. Ward: Where was it required? Mr. Accardo: Well, the shopping center right up the road. There was no negative comment. Let's say that. There was no negative comment in putting the sidewalk along the street. Mr. Ward: I don't know where we did it. Mr. Accardo: Right up the road. I forget the name of the street. The shopping center is right beyond the retirement village. Mr. Ward: There is a sidewalk there? Ms. Scopaz: The one across from the Bagel place. Ms. Spiro: Southold Square. Planning Board Page 16 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Accardo: It was an issue in whether the County was going to maintain it or whether the Town was going to maintain the sidewalk. Mr. Lessard: Yes, he is right. Ms. Scopaz: I think the discussion was that the Town did not want the sidewalk. If you wanted to maintain the sidewalk you were entitled to put one in. I don't recall if there was any other debate there. You have to keep in mind that the shopping center up the block was very close to down town business district. The shopping center that you are proposing in Mattituck, no one lives near there. No one is going to walk there from one vacant lot to the shopping center. That happens also to be a rather dangerous curve. I highly doubt that people are going to cross the four lanes at that point to walk to the shopping center. They would drive there. So there is really no point in having a sidewalk. Mr. Accardo: O.K. We will delete it. Why do you request a sidewalk in front the parking strips. I am not sure whether you do or not. We have one place where it looks like it is crossed out. Over here and over here you have put it back in. I don't what good a sidewalk right here would do if there is no sidewalk here. Mr. Ward: On the ends of the parking lot. Mr. Accardo: Yes. Mr. Ward: No. We are taking it off the street. I don,'.t.-see there is a problem. Ms. Scopaz: You want these here, so everybody that is parking in the back can walk up to the front. Mr. Accardo: There is one problem. I understand that you wanted away from the building so that we can put plantings there. Over here is the well that is already there. At this location there is already a test well that the sidewalk would go on top of. Mr. Ward: Are you going to use it. Mr. Accardo: When a test well has been driven, it can be used for. Mr. Ward: Cap it. Mr. Accardo: Cap it and drill a well a two feet away. Mr. Ward: No, just put the cap in the sidewalk. Like you do with anything else. Mr. Mullen: It is not unusual. Mr. Accardo: O.K. Tree lighting and pole conflict. I can move the lighting, that is no problem. Planning Board Page 17 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Ward: We would like to also see what you had in mind for lighting because to date we have not been too enthralled with what we have been seeing going up. - Mr. Accardo: If you are looking at the one, I did not design the lighting. If you look at the original, it is totally different. The developer changed it. Mr. Ward: So, we would like to see the drawing and everything right on here. Mr. Accardo: It was on the last one and they didn't build it like that. Mr. Ward: I understand. They don't have there C.O. yet either. Mr. Accardo: Another question, you wanted the dumpsters moved. Is there any reason or do you just feel that site will flow better that way. Ms. Scopaz: You want a truck to be able to come in and pick up the load without having to back up into Cox Neck Lane. A lot of people take that turn fast. It has potential for a bad accident if you have a truck backing out. Mr. Ward: It is also out of the way. Mr. Accardo: Alright. I have no problems doing the. .curb returns here. Making this a radius. The main and serious question is back here because that is going to reduce, I would have to eliminate the parking. If I push the building forward. . . Mr. Ward: You can come forward four feet. Mr. Accardo: If I come forward my curbs along the front right here will get severely reduced.. This side is very tight. I can come into the landscaping more. I will have to be done. Mr. Orlowski: You can make the building smaller. Mr. Accardo: Right now the proposed is fourteen point eight percent and we are allowed thirty. Mr. Latham: You said yourself, it is very tight. Mr. Accardo: I understand that, but right now all the plans were all designed and drawn and I think that would be little bit much to change. When I originally started the plan I have a letter of the Town requirements. The first statement was that I submit six site plans. It said nothing about scale. This scale here was originally agreed upon, then you changed the requirements. Actually, on the first thing listed a 1"=20' scale to be required. Planning Board Page 18 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Ward: If you had shown all those concrete bumpers then we wouldn't be confused. Mr. Accardo: Can we leave the scale? Is that O.K.? Because to redraw this would be a lot of work to go up in scale. In the future I will gladly draw something at 1"=20' . However, this is a lot of work that went into this and to redraw it at a different scale is really a big expense. Mr. Ward: It seems to me that you have enough changes on there that you will be erasing most of it off anyway. Mr. Accardo: I don't see that we have nearly that many changes. I can submit to you, I can have it enlarged on the machine. It is not going to be exactly accurate. Mr. Ward: It won't be able to show some of these relationships with your bumpers. You say you are not having them out here. Mr. Accardo: I will increase this to twenty foot. I would like to resolve some of these things this evening because that twenty foot is going to cut out another five spaces. If I push the building forward and keep this twenty four feet. Ms. Scopaz: What is the rational with keeping twenty four feet? Mr. Accardo: A car that pulling out of any one of these areas, if another car were passing there is not enough of & turning radius for this car to make that turn while that car was passing. Twenty four feet minimum code usually. Ms. Scopaz: We are not talking about Smith Haven Mall here, we are talking about a small shopping center. Most people will probably come in off the County Road and go to it in a one way sweep through. Mr. Accardo: I don't see the rationale in reducing safety so that no one will park here. It is listed as no parking it is a fire zone. Ms. Scopaz: It's a fire zone? Mr. Accardo: Yes. It is a fire zone because you need fire access for the fire engines around the building. They wouldn't be able to get back here. It has to be kept clear. That is why it is down as a fire zone. Mr. Mullen: It takes up quite a bit of area too. Mr. Accardo: To reduce that to twenty just so no one parks there is really is creating a hazard on the site. Mr. Ward: I think that tonight the impact that we have ended up with is four foot in this stretch. Planning Board Page 19 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Accardc: I am going to push it four foot forward to put the sidewalk back here. Mr. Ward: Once you do that I think you are going to find that the measure is drawn up to twenty scale. You have erased every line on the paper. Mr. Accardo: If I can do things with the dimension then I don't have to change the drawing. Just change the dimensions. The drawing is staying the same. All the erasing is right here. I can give you an enlargement of the print. It is not going to be a formal sheet like this. It would be an enlargement of just the site, if that is acceptable. That is no problem and I will make all the revisions on the enlargement. Mr. Ward: Well, whatever you can do. Whether it is an enlargement or redo. Whatever, we would want to see this. Make sure you get the curb stops and things in. Those are things we didn't realize you had. Mr. Accardo: That is no problem. Mr. Ward: The other option in doing that is since you are putting a curb in anyway would be to do this. (Marked on map) Mr. Accardo: That is a large expense. People don't like. The curb stop is fine. It is actually very heavy. It is not going any where if you hit it. It has an angle on it. Mr. Ward: We had another question. What about the sketches and that you gave us on the building? What seems to be going on? Mr. Accardo: This is the original sketch I submitted. Here are, the building elevations. They are actually quite similar. In fact I think they are nicer then the original sketch. We are using brick and vinyl. A nice asphalt roof that looks like a wood roof. We are putting planted boxes out along the sidewalk. They want to make the site look nice. They are not trying to cut any corners. I just like to get it through. It is making me look bad. I have done a lot of jobs. I just wish this could finish up soon pretty quickly. Ms. Scopaz: You have three different kinds of siding you have brick in the front, cedar siding on the sides, stucco in the back. Mr. Accardo: The back no one sees. Mr. Ward: Why do you have parking there. Mr. Accardo: Employee parking. Do you want cedar in the back. Mr. Ward: We would just like to see, if we have a shot at it, if we can continue the same material around the building and not break it up. Mr. Mullen: You never know what is going to come down the road. . J ' Planning Board Page 20 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Ward: What is you front going to be? You had a brick? Mr. Accardo: Right. Mr. Latham: You mentioned vinyl, where is that. I Mr. Accardo: I forgot we changed it to cedar. It is going to be an attractive center. We are trying to make it. Mr. Ward: Actually out here, this does not have to be a continuous sidewalk. Put the curb down. Mr. Accardo: Put the curb in front of the doors. Mr. Ward: No, put the curb all the way through. Give us the pad at the doors and then you can plant this. In other words, it does not have to be thick stuff. Just put something there. This will give us the safety of someone opening a door and not being into that traffic. Mr. Accardo: There were a couple of other things. Such as the traffic study. Could you tell me, you said if there was any road improvement required that you would let me know. I have not heard anything and it has been a while. Have we made any progress on that. Ms. Scopaz: We have traffic reports from Sidney Bowne's. Mr. Accardo: I spoke to Sidney Bowne and they are strictly handling the drainage and the site itself and they were not: getting involved with the traffic. Ms. Scopaz: We asked them to review the traffic studies as well. The County had indicated to the Town that they have done an independent traffic analysis that the County recommended that the Town assess what the changes might be on the Town Road. That is why Sidney Bowne has asked for there review. I think the Board will discuss their comments now. Mr. Ward: How do you feel about the elevations? How would you like to see them done? Just to simplify it a little, so we stucco one way, brick another. Mr. Accardo: I don't have a problem with doing the final elevations. Keeping it the two materials, I just want to make the project go. Mr. Ward: Alright. And the point is that there is parking there, so we get the circulation there. Mr. Latham: Is there any trees along there. Mr. Accardo: Everything that is listed is staying there. They are all listed as existing, so they are staying there. I tried to work with any large caliper that was existing, to keep it there. So we increase the width of the island here and put the four sidewalk. Assume we can leave this. Planning Board Page 21 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Ward: Yes, we just didn't see how it was worked with the curb line. Mr. Accardo: Do you object to curb in the front? Should I move it? I Mr. ward:, No. Mr. Accardo: Fine. So just based on the comments made tonight, I will make those revisions. Do feel it is going to go through pretty soon, hopefully? Have you heard anything about the traffic? Mr. Orlowski: It is in Sidney Bowne's report. Do you have a copy of that? Mr. Accardo: No I do not. Mr. Mullen: April 24th. Mr. Accardo: Could you mail me a copy of this, so I can address it. Hopefully the next pass will be the final pass. Mr. Orlowski: It is not so bad. Mr. Mullen: It could be worse. Mr. Accardo: It could be worse, but my client is getting impatient. Mr. Orlowski: It is a sensitive site, so we have to make sure it is right. O.K. On this proposal are you going to keep the name, The Shoppes at Southold? Mr. Accardo: No, that is up in the air. Mr. Orlowski: I think it would be very confusing to everybody in Southold if you tried that. Mr. Accardo: That is really just a job name that we put in the office to do our book keeping. The final discission will be the applicant's. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. On this proposal everything is order for a negative declaration in regards to SEQRA. The time is up other then the traffic which they will be addressing. Timewise, we are over the limit. We could condition on the traffic. Mr. Ward: O.K. I'd go. So move, subject to a mitigating effect on the traffic. Mr. Orlowski: Just in case there is a environmental impact on the traffic study when it is complete. Can I have a motion on that? Mr. Ward: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Planning Board Page 22 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Being as I have nothing left on my agenda, any questions from the Board. Mr. Mullen?, Mr. Latham?, Ward? Board Members: No questions. Mr. Mullen: Make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz? Ms. Scopaz: No. Mr. Orlowski: Motion. made and seconded. All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Gustayson: May I have an opertunity to address the Board? Or is the meeting now over? Mr. Orlowski: The meeting is now over. Mr. Gustayson: I did not expect any action, I actually want some advice. Some guidance regarding the Suffolk Times building in Mattituck. We had hoped to be on the agenda tonight. I understand an inspection was made last week. There is a couple of problems. One with the parking lot and another with a bank that was not landscaped. My question is, is there any possibility of provisional approval, site plan approval, based on a couple of small details on very large project. We are scheduled to move there in about ten days. If we can not move in May, we might as well not move till September. Because we have to put a paper out on Wednesday night and begin moving at six a.m. on a Thursday to next weeks paper out. Doing it in the middle of the summer really becomes a very difficult situation. I believe virtually everything else that you have asked for has been done. We acknowledge that there were puddles in the parking lot. Two small ones, I think. The contractor said that he will come back and reroll it. I am just wondering do we really have to wait two weeks, I guess we do now that the meeting is over. Two weeks to get you folks to pass it. Mr. Orlowski: The policy of this Board has always been any approval that we give, the final approval that we give. The project must be Planning Board Page 23 May 9 , 1988 complete because we have gotten caught in the ringer so many times with projects not being complete. The Building Department, Mr. Lessard, I know has actually issued a temporary C.O. We don't even acknowledge that they exist. This Board is not ready to do that till it is complete. We have the site plan, it is signed. The policy is when it is done we will give our recommendations. I don't know if you have any problems down there, Mr. Lessard? Mr. Gustayson: I can understand that policy. But the fact of a puddle in the parking lot. Mr. Orlowski: The problem is that the puddle always stays a puddle for the next twenty something years. Mr. Gustayson: I understand that, I just wondered is there such a thing as contingent upon, I guess, the temporary approval? I understand your concern. All I can say is we will certainly take care of it. But the fact is if we have to wait now for two weeks and then presumably another week we are in June. Mr. Orlowski: Will you have it done in two weeks? Mr. Gustayson: It has probably been done by now. This was an inspection that took place last week. In anticipation of being on the agenda this evening. Mr. Orlowski: We only did it Friday. Mr. Gustayson: The other issue as understand it, now this is all second hand from our construction manager, was an embankment that did not have wood chips on it. Again, . . . being the project that seems to make the landscaping insignificant. It is going to cause a major, I mean to relocate twenty employees a two hundred thousand dollar computer system and get out a newspaper next week. To do that, once we get into June, it really becomes an ordeal for us. Mr. Ward: Who did the inspection? Melissa? Ms. Spiro: Victor, myself and Val. Mr. Ward: What was missing? Ms. Spiro: The plantings in the back. Mr. Lessard: All the backing in the back was cut away but nothing put on it to hold it. There was one tree there that was like two foot above. The parking lot was two foot below the grade of the roots and we did not know what Would happen to that. The Pin oaks that were shown on the site plan were laying on the ground all cut up. Mr. Mullen: When do you think you can complete these recommendations? Any idea? �• W P Planning Board Page 24 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Gustayson: If the issue is the parking lot and the embankments, they will be completed this week. Mr. Mullen: I will go out Thursday with Vic and check it out. We can make it subject to if you want to do that. Mr. Latham: Is it in the back, the plantings too? Mr. Lessard: I don't know what the design is for the back. Mr. Gustayson: My understanding is all the landscaping done. All the sod has been laid. All the plantings. The embankments that we are talking about are designed to take wood chips. Mr. Lessard: When we were out there the back planters were not planted. The banks were raw, if you want to use that word. And it was raining like the old cat, you know. Mr. Mullen: Why don't we do this Vic? You believe you will have everything improved by Friday? I will come down and go out with you and check it out. If you want to make it subject to. I agree I don't think we should for a couple of things like that, but we do want to have it done. Mr. Gustayson: I don't mean to underestimate the significance. I understand we need to do that. Mr. Mullen: We have been stuck before. Mr. Gustayson: I understand that. Mr. Mullen: So do you want to do it subject to that? Mr. Ward: When we meet Friday we can vote on it then. Mr. Mullen: We would have to open the meeting again, I assume? Mr. Lessard: It does not call for a public meeting. If you people want to go subject to and come back and make your report and your discission. Mr. Mullen: I will come down 9 O'clock Friday morning. Mr. Lessard: I will make myself available as far as that is. Mr. Orlowski: As long as everything is complete this Board can just tell Victor. We can do it in a form of a motion since this one is closed already. Do you want to make it subject to? Mr. Lessard: There is still one other thing that is disturbing, when you graded out in the front. When you left there, the grade is like two or three feet above the natural roots. That is going to choke them. I would strongly suggest, I have no authority to do this, it is Planning Board Page 25 May 9 , 1988 strictly advice and you can throw it out the window. Those things well out or you are going to lose them. Mr. Gustayson: O.K. As I said we went through a heck of a lot of trouble to save them. Mr. Lessard: Except the two on the east that were cut down. I got a little upset about that. I am a tree nut anyway. Ms. Scopaz: Can your landscaper put a well around them without disturbing the rest of the root? Like you said the trees are going to die. Mr. Gustayson: You mean so much higher than the roots. Mr. Lessard: Yes. That happened to me on my own property. I lost twenty trees after they pumped in off the creek and built it up. They can't breathe. They just plain choke. Mr. Mullen: I would like to make a motion of approval subject to inspection on Friday the 13th. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Everything has to be done. Mr. Gustayson: I say if it is not, then we blew our chance. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else? Mr. Barnes: I think I am in the same dilemma. Mr. Orlowski: I think you are too. That is why I asked. Mr. Barnes: My name is Leroy Barnes and I represent Southold as the construction contractor. We had a letter from the Board stating what we had to do. Which we did. On Friday Victor and I assume you (Valerie) and the young lady (Melissa) inspected it and found water. Saturday we did not find any water, nor Sunday, nor today. It is a very slow run off. It was designed by the Miller Associates. They were very close to almost no run off at all. The Peconic surveyors changed it so we would have a little more slow then it is now. But it is running off. We will comply. We will do anything else you would like in order to get a temporary C.O. Planning Board Page 26 May 9 , 1988 Mr. Orlowski: No temporaries. I just said that. There is no such thing as a temporary. The job has to be complete. Will it be complete? Mr. Barnes: All I know is that we were suppose to be on today, but we weren't because of a problem with the parking. Mr. Ward: We also have a lighting problem there too. Mr. Barnes: We corrected it. Ms. Spiro: They fixed the lighting. They changed the angle of the lights. Mr. Ward: The plans that were submitted to us that we approved is not what was put up. Mr. Barnes: There were more lights. Mr. Ward: I am sure that there is a higher stanchion up there than what was approved on the site plan. Mr. Barnes: That I don't know about. Miller Associates did that with Eecco electric. I know there were more stanchion there with more lights. We have less lights and less stanchion now. Mr. Ward: Except that they may be half as high as what was proposed originally. Even though there would have been more light posts, they would have been at a lower level. The impact wouldn't have been nearly as great as what ended up going up. Mr. Barnes: It is only on for two hours. From eight to ten. Mr. Ward: From eight to ten? Starting when? Mr. Barnes: Yesterday. Eight to ten. It is time clock that is in the back, it has always been there. It has been a time problem. Mr. Ward: It has not been one. Mr. Barnes: It is from eight to ten and then the back lights go on from ten to six. The safety lights that are all around the rear, which you can not see from the street. , Mr. Orlowski: What was the problem with the parking lot, Victor? Mr. Lessard: There was a lot of standing water. An awful lot of standing water. They got rid of the big ones but in so doing the patching, they created a tire effect around it. You. had the water around the tracks. We never went back to see how fast. Mr. Barnes: Saturday it was done. Mr. Lessard: If it drained off it was at a snail's pace. Anybody that would shop on a normal rainy day like that would be walking in water. Planning Board Page 27 May 9 , 1988 Because the runoff was not sufficient as far as I am concerned. That is bad business for you. People are not going to go shopping if they know they are going to ankle deep. On a normal everyday rain you might not have that condition. Where we went though there was a lot of standing water there and it was not going anywhere. Mr. Barnes: Was that the first day that you went? Mr. Lessard: No, this was last Friday. Mr. Barnes: Wasn't raining then? Mr. Lessard: Yes. It was a good rain. Mr. Orlowski: It is going to rain the next couple. of days. The Board will make there inspection on Friday. We can do it subject to and if there is water there, you are going to have to handle it. There will be no permits issued till it is finished. Mr. Lessard: It might be that it was an abnormal condition. This is what the three of us saw. Mr. Latham: I'll make a motion subject to those conditions. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Lessard: I will also ask before you close the meeting. We may have to go back and readjust those lights, .I am not sure. They twisted so that I think that it might satisfy the problem. I can not tell without them being on. Mr. Orlowski: You did not issue anything yet? I am sure you were going to check that before you were going to issue anything. Well this Friday we will make our inspection. Mr. Orlowski: Can we have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Mullen: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Planning Board Page 28 May 9 , 1988 The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 11 M. Thorp, �Secr. y outhold Town Planning Board BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHAI ..,,-,v1�11'�Q:�D TOWN!.d CL r►Y� 10�r,�UR7� r!oy?1 Clerlt iovvn of Southold