Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-08/15/1988 h : e 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 AUGUST 15, 1988 The Southold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday, August 15, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. 'at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold. PRESENT WERE: Bennett Orlowski,Jr. , Chairman Member William Mullen Member G. Ritchie Latham Member Kenneth Edwards Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Planner Melissa Spiro. Victor Lessard Secretary Jill Thorp- ABSENT: Richard Ward Mr. Orlowski: Good Evening. I would like to call this meeting to order. First order of business is 7 :30 p.m. Chardonnay Woods- Public hearing on the question of preliminary approval for this major subdivision. This parcel is on 44.376 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-51-3-3 . At this time everything is in order for a preliminary hearing. We have proof. of publication in the Long Island Traveler/Watchman and in the Suffolk Times. At this time I will ask if there are any objections to this major subdivision? Mr. Kahil: My name is Greg Kahil. I own a piece of land on the south side of Old North .Road and the south side of this Particular piece of property. We have a significant water problem when we get very heavy rains. I am worried that the development could make the water problems worse. What I mean by water problems is if we get heavy rains all North Road can be closed for days. I am talking about a stretch of two hundred, three hundred, yards under about two feet of water. Planning Board 2 August 15, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Are there any other objections to this major subdivision? Ms. Scopaz: Mr.. Orlowski, if I may answer this mans question. We have our Town Engineer working very closely with the Highway Department to address, specifically, the problem that you are speaking of . The applicant did revise the map several times in order to accommodate proper drainage for that area. Because we do not want this new developement to create. . . to make the existing situation any worse then it is. My understanding is that the engineers have resolved the problem. You are welcome to review the drainage plans in the file. Mr. Kahil: I did look at the drainage plans. I looked at the files today and I see that there are four retaining areas. The one I am concerned about is what they call retaining area one. It is right across the road from us. I guess my question is, I am not an engineer, if that builds up will it drain somewhere else or will it overflow as it does today? Will it hold as much water as it does today or will it be worse? How can anybody reassure me? Ms. Scopaz: Do you mean on the subject property? Mr. Kahil: Yes. Ms. Scopaz: All the runoff that a property generates. . . when a piece of property is developed all the storm. water runoff that the property generates as well as what it will generate after it is constructed has to be contained on site. That is what we have. our Town Engineer review. In other words, the applicant does all the drainage calculations and the engineers review those calculations to make sure that the proposed potential runoff that could come off of that site can. be held on that property. We could not approve pushing off to some one else' s property. The Engineers are saying, yes, the proposed drainage plans as it has. been worked. . , you should realize that there were several .revisions to those plans, primarily because of that problem. There was a lot of discussion on different ways of handling the run off. Our engineers are saying that it. does meet that criteria. Lets hope they are right. Mr. Orlowski: Any other objections to this subdivision? . Mr. Lillis: My name is Gary Lillis. I am a neighbor of Kahil' s. Is the Planning Board familiar with conditions in that area during storms? Mr. Orlowski: We have our engineers that go -out and check this. Mr. Lillis: So you as the Planning Board are satisfied -with the plan for drainage for that area? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Planning Board 3 August 15, 1988 Mr. Lillis: You are familiar with the conditions. Mr. Orlowski: Our engineer is. I am not a professional, .but they have to retain the water on site as Ms. Scopaz has said. Our engineers are guaranting us that. Mr. Lillis: And they also are guaranting that the Old North Road will be open during these conditions? Mr. Orlowski: That is what they tell us and that is what all the reports say. We have to go along with that. Mr. Lillis: We do have some photos. Mr. Orlowski: Do you have other engineering information or calculations that c n prove taut Does not .,cork? Mrs. Dor_apria: We have photos t„_t __ __a t-a'-_en during storms. These photos were taken dlsring, a storm in 82. 1 think that the guarantee that the people are locking for is that .these conditions will not happen. a.gain. We do not want just the new developement to be protected, we want this entire road to be protected: We want a guarantee for that. This was not water. This was a river. We have pictures of people boating. The road was closed at least four or five days. This is a severe storm. Mr. Lillis: It characterizes the most severe area in Southold Town. Quote Mr. Dean in the Suffolk Times..._,I have a copy of- the Suffolk Times also with this quote. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Jacobs, who is there now, is satisfied with this system the way it is. Mr. Ward who is a Board member who lives down there and is an ,engineer, is satisfied. These comments will. be taken into consideration, and we will have them look it over again and make sure. We are not going to create a problem down there. We can not take a subdivision and pump the water onto any where else but that area. Ms. Scopaz: There is one thing you should be aware of, and that is the Planning Board has the right to. ask a developer of a piece of property to take care of his property and any problem associating with his property. It cannot ask a developer- to take care of existing drainage problems on a Town road that is not related to his property. In other words his. property is not the main cause of the flooding. What the Board has done is made sure that this property will not add to the problem. You should be aware also that at the present time some of the water on the North Road is being channeled onto the developers property and he has worked his drainage plan to take into account that .water. That is already coming onto his property at this time. That water that .is going onto his property now is not going to .stay on the North Road, it will continue going onto his property. If you feel that the problem is larger then that, for instance that it involves drainage from a longer stretch of the road then the Planning Board 4 August 15, 1988 appropriate form *Mould be for you to go to the Town Board and make it known to them that the drainage problem is so serious that it goes beyond just the initial property in question. I think the Board is sympathetic to what you are saying, but please recognize that they are constrained. They can only ask the developer to handle what his property will add to it. He. has already done that. If there is something there that is a deficiency that preexisted it, they can not ask him to address something that was a result of someone else' s property. You may want to consider going to the Town Board and presenting your problem to them. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Just so you know, this application-was started in 1985 and our biggest concern was layout and drainage, we have been working with the applicant since that. It was three years to get to the preliminary hearing. which is one reason why we get yelled at for being so slow, but we try to make sure we are not creating problems on this site or for other people. Like Valerie says, we can not control the other areas and say it will , not happen. This site will retain all its water. Any other objections? Mrs. Wacker: I have one. I would like to ask you if. . . I can appreciate you are concerned about a developer adding to a problem. If there is a problem there why is it that the Town approves or accepts an application for a project which if it does not add to it, it certainly does not help. Shouldn't the situation be remedied before you add anything more to it. Obviously if you are adding more buildings you are going to create more problems. It is inevitable. I. don't know if this is your problem or the Town Board' s. It certainly seems to me that this is something that should be investigated and studied before any other developement is added to what is already a problem. Mr. Orlowski: When someone comes in to subdivide, their problem is to handle all the runoff from their property. And that is their problem. In this case since 1985 they have been trying to handle that problem to our 'satisfaction, our engineer' s satisfaction. We believe that it has been handled now. That is the best we can do. They have the right to make an application to subdivide their property under the current zoning. They also have the responsibility to maintain the water on their property. Like I said, it has been three years already since they made an application. You have seen our engineering bills for this property, they are quite steep. We just wanted to make sure. We wanted all the answers for the last three years. We are satisfied now. Our engineers have given us. the report that we needed. Mrs. Wacker: Wouldn't you agree that if you don't except an. application from another group that wants to develope until that problem is corrected. Wouldn't you, as a reasonable human being say, yes we should do that. I don' t where that falls, but is something that should be considered. .Planning Board 5 August 15, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Everyone has a right to. . . Mrs. Wacker: Nobody can say that the developer can be concerned about the problem that is there. If there are problems we should all say well lets fix this before we except any more applications. Mr. Orlowski: I don' t see how we can handle that. Everyone has a right to subdivide their property. They cannot subdivide and cause another problem somewhere else. That is the only way we can handle it. There is a problem in that road. It is a Town Road. I suggest that you go before the Town Board and petition the Town Board to handle that problem. They are the ones that are responsible. Mrs. Wacker: It just seems to be too bad that we don't figure the cumulative effect of anything. We say this fellow has. the right to develope. It is according to our constitution to look. We don' t say if he developes and this is going to happen and the next guy who developes and that is going, to happen it is all around the lot. Then you have the tragedy of the Commons. Where each person is going to do a little more then he should.. Somebody in the government should be figuring what is going to happen if the whole area, the whole neighborhood is developed. Mr. Orlowski: Right. I think we are getting out of the boundaries of this subdivision, and the Planning Board can not do that. We are looking 'at one piece -of property and we have boundaries we are confined to and that is what we are going to address. A problem like that should go to the Town Board. I am going to have to go on with this hearing. It is a good question and if there is that big a problem created. by other properties along side the Town Road then I suggest that it is the Town Board you talk to. This Board is only addressing the project that we have before us. Mrs. Wacker: I think this is a problem in many areas in the Town and maybe the proper avenue is to go to the Town Board. Mr. Orlowski: Right, Town Board. Any other objections to this subdivision? Hearing none, any endorsements to this subdivision? Hearing none, is there anyone out there that is neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to the Board? Mr. Rego: Mr. Orlowski, my name is Neil Rego, I am the developer of the 45 acre parcel that is in question on the preliminary hearing tonight. With all do respect to the. Board, I have to say they did a fantastic job for the Town. My engineer unfortunately, Ed Bullock, is supposed to be here. I hope momentarily but we are not only taking care of our 45 acres of water. But the Planning Board saw fit to let us take in another 65 acres worth. I think if you check the calculations here, I Planning Board 6, August 15, 1988 think we are taking care of . one hundred acres. I was not happy to do it, but you made me do it. It certainly should be noted. Mr. Orlowski: We touched on that. We did try to make sure we got every little bit that we could. It did take us a long time but we got there. That is where we are and we thank you. Any other comments. Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen? Mr. Mullen: Yes, I have a comment. Number one I invite the , people to check the file. This. project has been engineered as, recently as August 8. In addition I might recommend that we make a consideration to the engineering firm when they make their recommendation for a bond for the subdivision, that perhaps they give consideration to protecting us for indication in regard to the drainage situation. Mr. Latham: Good point. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham: Nothing other then that. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards? Mr. Edwards: No just that I agree with Mr. Mullen' s comment. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz? Ms. Scopaz: No, nothing to add. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Being no further questions I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming down. Mr. Orlowski: Elijah' s Lane Estates, Section III- Public hearing on the question of preliminary approval for this. major subdivision. This parcel is located. at Elijah' s Lane, Mattituck. SCTM #1000-108-4-7 .1. Everything is in order for a preliminary hearing. We have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler/Watchman also in the Suffolk Times. I will ask if there are any objections to this major subdivision? Hearing. none, are there any endorsements to this major subdivision? Mr. Popkin: Irwin Popkin, the applicant. Mr. Orlowski: I think that is a yes. Mr. Popkin: ' That is a yes. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but may information pertaining to this subdivision that would be of interest to this Board?Hearing none, any questions from the Board?. Mr. Mullen, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards.? Planning Board 7 August 15, 1988 Reply of the Board: No. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz? Ms. Scopaz: No. Mr. Orlowski: Being no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming. Mr.- Orlowski: Going onto subdivisions. East Marion Woods- Board to make a determination_ on the final- maps of this major subdivision, survey dated March 2, 1987. This parcel is on 59.827 acres located at East Marion. SCTM #1000-30-1-5.1. I think any approvals should be subject to the fire wells as recommended by the East Marion Fire District and street trees. We also need a map with updated. Health approval. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Mullen: Approval subject to. Mr. Latham: Yes.. Subject to those things. Mr. Orlowski: .Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So' ordered. Mr. Orlowski: DBM-Cluster proposal- Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps on this major subdivision, survey dated March 24, 1988, This parcel is on 37 .762 acres located at Southold. SCTM #1000-55-6-15.1. Any approvals should be subject to the drainage plans by the Engineer. Everything else is in order. Mr. Edwards: Approval subject to the drainage plans. 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? ,So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: The Woods at Cutchogue- Board to make a determination on the preliminary maps on this major subdivision., survey dated May 25, 1988. This parcel is on 29.540 acres located .at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-102-1-4. Everything is in Planning Board 8 August 15, 1988 order. We should comment that the final plans should show complete road and cross sections so the applicant will be ready to do that. Mr. Latham: I will move subject to the final showing 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: . Hanach & Watts- Board -to take action on the sketch map for this minor subdivision, survey dated as amended. May 26, 1988. Board to start the coordination process to determine lead agency and environmental significance. This parcel is. on 12.623 'acres located a Cutchogue.. SCTM #1000-101-1-14.1. I entertain a motion to take lead agency and coordinate that with the other departments. Mr. Edwards: 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.. What is the Board' s pleasure on the sketch? At this time. I think that we should ask for no further subdivision. Mr. Latham: Approve subject to covenants. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? I Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.. Mr. Orlowski: August Acres- Board to review David Emilita, Planning Consultant, comments of August 12, 1988 on this major subdivision. SCTM #1000-53-4-44. 2. Ms.. Scopaz you have a comment? Planning Board 9 August 15, 1988 Ms. Scopaz: Yes. I just handed you a memo pertaining to August Acres section I . You have deceived two sets of comments. The first from the State _Department of Environmental Conservation which has requested additional information pertaining to the soils on site. The applicant has been asked to provide that information. We have not received it yet. The DEC did not have a problem with this Boards initial .determination of non-significance. The Board' s environmental consultant, Dare Emilita, does feel that the proposed action will have an impact on the environment. Consequently he recommends issuance of a positive declaration on the grounds that, .I will just summarize it. I will read into the record his actual report. -Basically he feels that the mitigation of the environmental impacts on the pond must be addressed. The site is inadequately drained at present. The second phase of the project must be discussed at this time in order to avoid segmentation under the State Environmental Quality Reviev�i procedures. Further, Mr. Emilita. has recommended that an archeological survey be, conducted. Basically to summarize his comments, he itemizes four basic impacts that he was concerned about. The first is the impact on the land. I am reading the last page of his report which was received this afternoon. Construction is supposed to. continue for more then one year. This. can be mitigated by adopting a title construction schedule and providing certain environmental controls. _during construction. There is an existing one acre pond on site which is supposed to be used as a drainage area. This can also be mitigated' by project change. The second impact of which he is concerned about is impact on,_the. water. The proposed action will likely cause siltation into an" existing 'body of water. Namely the one acre pond on lot number one. This can be mitigated by providing erosion control measures and placing the pond in a conservation zone of ' open space. The proposed action will alter surface water runoff and may cause substantial erosion. . . .is not shown on the plan. It runs from the drainage area and must be evaluated. It is possible that a direct connection continues to lot number one onto the Sage Property, which is to the' west of this property. No correspondence from the New York State Department Environmental Conservation with respect to a connection to title wetlands exist. I would like to mention that the Trustees have also informed this Board that they do have a permit on file for permission to run a discharge pipe from the 'recharge basin into the wetlands. The applicant would have to proceed with that as well. Back to the memo, impact on drainage, several low spots pond during periods of rain fall. The drainage system does not function properly and must be redesigned. Some new construction of roads and drainage may be' necessary. The purpose of the fifteen foot wide easement to land now or formerly of Paconca needs to be explained and its impact assessed. Fourth, impact on growth, phase two needs to be incorporated into the plans at this time to avoid segmentation under SEQRA. I have included here a copy of the tax map showing the location of the proposed section two, which is not shown in the file. This is a rectangular piece of property to the north of the section one. It is adjacent to State Route 25.. Planning Board 10 August 15, 1988 Mr. .Orlowski: It appears that we should positive dec. this. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Edwards: 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Norris Estate Deveio meat- Board to review the correspondence from David- Emilita, Engineering Consultant, dated July 22, 1988 in reference to the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Board to send the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement to David Emilita for his review. This was received by the Planning Board office on .August 12, 1988. Board to take a 30 day extension for the review of the .Draft Environmental Impact Statement, from September 11, 1988 to October 11, 1988. Ms. Scopaz 'do you have any comment on this. Ms. Scopaz: No. Other then the correspondence that was received. from Dave Emilita, the applicant has informed us that the Draft EIS supposedly incorporates all those comments. When we review it for completeness we will have to review it with-'Mr. Emilita`s memo. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. I will entertain a motion to send .the Draft Environmental. Impact Statement to Mr. Emilita for his review. Mr. Latham: 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Also Board to take a. thirty ( 30) day extension to review the Draft Environmental' Impact Statement. Mr. Mullen: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Planning Board 11 August 15, .1988 ' ote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Angel Shores- Board to review the. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This parcel is on 92.7 acres. located at Southold. .SCTM #1000-88-6-4,5,13 .1. Ms. Scopaz do you have comments on this. Ms. Scopaz: We have several comments from several agencies. I will start off by giving a brief synopsis of what .their response has been. We have any August 15, 1988 report from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.. They basically find the document incomplete for public review. David Emilita, the Environmental Planning Consultant, sent a August 11, 1988 report, he also finds the document incomplete, unsatisfactory for public review. We have comments from Joe Hall from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and in his report dated July 19, 1988. He asks for additional information before proceeding with his review. The Town Trustees in their report dated July 27, 1988, .did not make a statement. on the . completeness of the report but they did say they prefer the third alternative besides the no action alternative. I think their comments are a little premature at this time. We will address them after the document is completed. Finally, we have received. comments from Frank Panack, who is another review person in the State Department of Environmental Conservation, but their Stony Brook office. Joe Hall is from-the Albany office. In his report (Frank Panack) dated July 28, 1988, he also makes additional comments pertaining to the accuracy of some of the data that is in the report. If you want I can just read what the insufficiencies that are in the report. Mr. Orlowski: I think that this Board is going to make a determination that this impact statement is incomplete and therefore, send it back to the applicant. There is no sense wasting any more time on it. Mr. . Moore: William Moore, on behalf of the applicant. I did not have the benefit of getting at least three of those sets of comments. If it is your intention and desire to return the DEIS for additional .material, I would ask in making a resolution whether you incorporate these documents by reference or otherwise., to keep this SEQRA to go along properly, set forth the reasons why you are returning the document to us. Mr. Orlowski: All of these will go back with the resolution. Mr. Paterson: I would like to speak too. George Paterson, president of the Terry Waters Association., which is contiguous to this proposed construction; Angle Shores. .Before I speak on my particular point, I want to second the lady that suggested to you as a group that you should look at the overall impact to the Planning Board 12 August 15, 1988 additional housing in this area. It makes be think that people in New Amsterdam three hundred years ago, if they had a Planning Board could have said to them about .lower Manhattan which proceeded upward and is the present way now. We have question, .a very serious question about the amount of water that is going to be available after Angel Shores is completed and The Cove. Whether they are connected legally or by ownership. rights. There is talk about that. I don't know, but I do. know they are being built and The Cove is being sold. It is a serious problem for the local residence. You can not get any more local they we are, our two blocks. We have been a long time and we are very concerned about this particular problem. We hope that you will look into to this more seriously and be extra cautious about that. Frankly, we would prefer you turn the whole thing down.. . Another question and objections is to a road, which I haveseen on the proposed plan, going into Terry Waters. Going into. Rambler Road Extension. Rambler Road Extension and Rambler Road is a small Town Road. Nothing big at all. We would certainly not like -to have this invasion from these other people through our road and going up to the Main.. Road. Of course who knows where they will be going and what times of day or night. We would not like to have that road permitted at all. You may say, well they need a second egress. O.K. let them get a second egress through someone else, not through us. We are very concerned about that. My next point is serious concern about the wetlands. If you look at the wetlands, it is right in front of our houses.. We are . looking right at what used to be two ponds there. The swans used to be in the larger pond. There is not any,--pond now. It is a dry bed. Can' I prove that happen. because of Angel Shores? 'No. But I am very concerned about it. Already the local residence,-. not only on Rambler Road Extension but the continuation Rambler Road have been deprived of something which has been there since the year one. We are very concerned about the wetlands issue. For our sake and for everyones sake. We notice that they are piping on the Main Road from Angle Shores straight down. It is very extensive, I think to the Cove. Mr. Orlowski: Yes, they are. Mr. Paterson: There must be. some kind of an agreement or ownership. I am not interested in that part. I_ do know that they propose to take care of Angle Shores and. The Cove. I don' t blame, them for investing money in it. But, what I am afraid of is that will leave Terry Waters and other properties on the other side of Main Bayview and also others, out without a drink of water. If you approve of all of these things and don't protect us as your first clients, who have been here all along, I think that would -be objectionable. I would like to ask a question. Who is paying for the piping? Mr. Orlowski: It is between both applicants. The Cove and Angel Shores. I would just like to say that water system is something that has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health. Planning Board 13 August 15, 1988 Mr. Paterson: I don't care who approves- it. It is Mr. Orlowski: When it comes to water approvals it comes out of our hands and puts it in theirs. They have the responsibility to make sure that there is no .adverse effect to the surrounding area. Mr. Paterson: That is not totally comforting, especially if our water begins to taste salty. They can go home at _night to where ever they go but we will 'be stuck there while Angel Shores and The Cove is well taken care of. I am asking you to execrcise everything that you can to protect your own neighbors here in this area. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: We have walked this project, I don' t know how many times. This has been in Court twice.. We are getting dizzy with this. Right know we are worrying about the Environmental Impact. We have a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that we feel is not complete. It does not come close to answering all the questions. Tonight we are going to declare it incomplete and with all our comments send it back to the applicant. A lot of questions will have to be answered. We .can only go from there. We are very much concerned. We have been around those ponds and in that low area for many years now. We make at least two inspections a year and we will look at it closely. Mr. Paterson: As I said before you only have to look at one pond. What else can we, as Terry Waters-Association, do to help this? Mr. Orlowski: Any comments, you can address in writing to this Board and when the impact statement is complete it will be available for review. If you have any comments to make on that you will have a period to make comment. The Board will review them and send them back to the applicant to address them. Mr. Paterson: How will we know when it is ready? Mr. Orlowski: We will advertise. On this case we will probably have a public hearing: Mr. Paterson: Thank you. Ms. Scopaz: If you want- to read the comments that will be sent to the applicant, you can stop in the. office. . Mr. Orlowski: I have a motion made and seconded to send it back. Mrs. Wahl: Can I say something? Mr. Orlowski: This is not a public hearing. I would like to get on with the meeting. Planning Board 14 August 15, 1988 Mrs. Wahl: I know I am going to be immediately effected by it. My name is Ester Wahl. I am surrounded by Angel Shores. Right know I just want you to know- that I bottle my water, because the water table is so shallow. Salt intrusion. . . having that pumped. What ever water I do have, Thompsons as well as the Mullen' s, that little cluster of people that live at the very edge will be effected tremendously. How will I or how can you help me? Mr. Orlowski: You have to put these comments in writing and we . will send them to the proper people and get some answers.. That is all we can do. Mrs. Wahl: I have surveyors going to my property all the time. They are chopping branches down and trees. Mr. Orlowski: They can' t do that. Mrs. Wahl: I know, today 1 tcid they. better not. I called the police. I don' t know who to call. Mr. Orlowski: Right, well I would call the police. They can not come on your property and cut .your trees down. Mr. Wahl: They are. They said they can' t get through. I . said if you can' t get through, you are not going to. Mr. Orlowski: They can not do that. Put the comments in writing and we will address them. Mrs. Wahl: One other thing if I may. I know this is not a public hearing. Everything has been a history of errors. Accidentally not knowing. Having errors has been the history. Mr. Orlowski: We will do everything we can to make sure there are no errors. Mrs. Wahl: Thank you. There is a little part marked on the .map as park and recreation area. How could that accommodate approximately seventy to eighty families? Mr. Orlowski: We .are not sure that we are going to except that yet. We are probably going to .take money in lieu of. . Any other comments please send in writing. Mr. Luca: Just a clarification. You said the Planning Board does not take into consideration well water. A water supply of a subdivision you approve? Mr. Orlowski: Yes we do. The .County Health Department has to approve everything. Mr. Luca: You approve it. Planning Board 15 August 15, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: We approve it after they give their approval. By Article Six in Suffolk .County they have to provide palatable . water. Mr. Luca: The County Health Department approves the quality of water not the volume? Mr. Orlowski: Everything. They address everything. This water system that is going in now. If you want to address the County and find out what is going on down there, I would do that. We are going to need some answers for this project also. It will be in this impact statement which is no whereas near complete. Mr. Luca: One question, when they approve it, that means that it. will be sufficient and palatable for Angel Shores and The Cove? Is that it? Mr. Orlowski: It appears right now that is the way it is. At least for The Cove. Mr. Lucas: That don' t say anything about the impact upon the other tax payers around.. Mr. Orlowski: They should be addressing that and I am assuming. they are. That is part of their responsibility. When they give their approval it should be where it is -effecting anyone else. Mr. Lucas: You said it should? Mr. Orlowski: I will not speak for Suffolk County. Mr. Lucas: O.K. Mr. Orlowski: Can I have a motion made and seconded. Mr. Mullen: Yes. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham., . Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Charles DeLuca- Board to accept and request compliance with the Engineer's report dated August 1, 1988. This parcel is on 10.38 acres located at Southold. SCTM *100.0-66-2-2. Mr. Latham: Move it. Mr'. Mullen: Second. Planning Board 16 August 15, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded.. Any questions on. the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski; Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Richard Cron- Board to discuss the Engineer' s. report dated July 1, 1988. This parcel is on 3 :725 acres located at East Marion. SCTM #1000-35-5-5. Sidney Bowne, our Engineer recommends acceptance. On our own inspection in the field, 'we have our report. The road service is thin and weeds are growing through the road, yet Sidney Bowne's report stated that the stone blend service was placed satisfactory and they recommend expectance. I think we should look into this and at least make sure the weeds are out of the road way before final approval. Mr. . Latham: I' ll move for 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Gilbert and Ann Amiaga- Board to discuss Suffolk County Planning Commission comments of August 4, 1988. This lot line change is located on the North Road at Southold. SCTM #1000-135-1-23 & 24. Mr. Latham: Recommend compliance. 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Hillcrest Estates Section I- Board to accept and request compliance with the Engineer' s report dated July 20, 1988. SCTM #1000-13-2-8.3,8.36,8.10. Mr. Latham: Move it. Mr. Mullen: Second. .Planning Board 17 August 15, 1988 Mr. 'Orlowski: Motion made and. seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr.. Orlowski: Winds Way Corp.- Board to accept and request compliance with the Engineer' s report dated July 6, 1988. This site plan is located at Cutchogue. SCTM #1000- 117-8-6. 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Francis Greenberger- Board to grant a six (6) month extension, from September 7, 19.88 to March 7, 1989, . for the filing of the final maps for this minor subdivision. This parcel is on 15.581 acres located at East .Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-97-3-18.1. Mr. Edwards: 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Scott Kaufman- Board to grant a six (6) month extension, from September 7, 1988 to March 7, 1989, for the filing of the final maps for this minor subdivision. This parcel is on 6.889 acres located at East Cutchogue. SCTM #1000-97-3-20. Mr. Edwards: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Planning Board 18 August 15, 1988 Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Charles Simmons- Board to grant a six ( 6) month extension; from September 7, .1988 to March 7, .1989, for the filing of the final maps for this minor .subdivision. This .parcel is on 57.7 acres .located at Mattituck. SCTM #1000-112-1-8. Mr. Latham: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered.. Mr. Orlowski: Site Plans: Mullen. Motors- Board to approve the site plan subject to five ( 5) conditions. This parcel is located on the Main Road at Southold. SCTM #1000-62-3-20. The conditions are: 1. The grassed area shall extend. to;,.the westerly property line. 2. The sidewalk which is shown as being 3 ' wide, but is scaled at 5' shall be constructed at the 3' width. 3 . The grassed area between the sidewalk and the curb is . shown as being 2' in depth. It shall be constructed so as to extend from the edge of the sidewalk to the curb, which is to be installed as per NYSDOT standards and specifications. 4. The street trees shall be planted in accordance with the provisions of Section A108-41 of the Highway Specifications. 5. Any exterior lighting that may be added to the facade of the addition or to the existing structure in order to illuminate the facade of the addition shall be shielded so as not to throw light beyond the property boundaries. Mr— Edwards: Move to except subject to those five conditions. Mr. Latham: I think we should move it after he does it. Who is going to put trees in during the next two months? Planning Board 19 August 15, 1988 Mr. Mullen: There are five conditions, not just one. Mr. Orlowski: The only thing, Mr. Mullen (Richard) has a good comment, is planting trees in a car dealership creates havoc with the paint on the cars. That there, I could probably go a long with. There are no trees a long that area. There is grassed area. Mr. Latham: He couldn' t plant trees now anyway. Mr. Orlowski: The' rest of this work can 'be done and we can hold it. Mr. Latham: I don' t think that the trees are right there. Mr. Orlowski: That is just my opinion. Mr. Latham: That is a good point. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Send those comments over the applicant? Mr. Edwards: There has been a motion made and not seconded. 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Discussions: A Local Law in Relation to Zoning (building lot yield)- Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board on this amendment pertaining to building lots.. This is to change the code. The Code in the Town of Southold is hereby amended to. read as follows: The total building lot yield. of a standard subdivision, meeting applicable requirements,. shall be used to determine the number of building lots which the Planning Board make grant in a cluster subdivision. This eliminates a penalty clause for clustering, which we feel clustering leaves more open space. We can eliminate the penalty and use the yield map, which we can- use on all subdivisions. What is the recommendation. to the Town Board? Mr. Mullen: I suggest approve the amendment on the floor. Mr. Edwards: Second. Planning Board 20 August 15, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. Any questions on the motion. All those in favor? Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: A Local Law in relation to Zoning (Abstract of title)- Board to make a recommendation to the Town Board on this amendment. I am not going to read this. I know the Board has reviewed it. It is another one that they are in favor. of. What is the pleasure of the Board? Mr. Mullen: Approve and advise the Town Board accordingly. 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Mr. Orlowski: Next we. have. Peconic Trails- Board to discuss this application for a major subdivision .with the applicant. This parcel is on 44.6282 acres located at Peconic. SCTM #1000-74-1-38. Mr. Saland, I guess you represent the applicant? Mr. Saland: Originally we came in with a. standard subdivision plan. That was well over a year ago. We met with Valerie and listened to her advise on how she would like to see the piece developed and the fact that the Town was thinking about a water protection area. We should cluster our lots to the north and get together with our neighbor to the west, put in one road. Protect the homeowners up on the Sound and do a joint venture. We. have gone down this path for well over a year now and. come up empty handed. We are frustrated. We have listened to what she would like us to do and we can't comply. We have come back to the, Board and we would like to proceed with our original map and get on with it. Mr. Adams will not entertain a joint venture on the road. Any reasonable compromise that the Board wishes me to do, I am more then happy to comply with. Mr. Orlowski: How about clustering to the North? Mr. Saland: The problem in clustering to the north is that, I am willing to go up partially, 'but the road cost are astronomical. You are talking so many thousands of feet of .road. It is condemning my property. I don't know if you have noticed or not we are not in a boom right now on the North Fork. Planning Board 21 August 15, 1988 Mr. Orlowski: Really? Mr. Saland: No, we are not. Lots have been sitting and developers have been suffering. Mr. Orlowski: How about clustering to the south? Mr. Saland: That was my original plan, was clustering to the South, but Valerie had mentioned to me that the Town in it' s wisdom was talking about a watershed area that I would fall under and I had to cluster all my lots to the north. I find out that. . Mr. Orlowski: .I am just asking questions. I am not telling you what to do right now. Mr. Saland: Fine. That was my plan to cluster to- the. south. In fact, I am willing to ;cork out. a compromise. If some land to the south is left open, don' t make me put the road, all the road up to the north. .Strike a balance. The parcel to the east, the development rights have been sold. That will not be developed. Mr. Adams plans to land bank his piece for now. That' s why we came up half way. Mr. Orlowski: I definitely think the Board would want to have it clustered and at least get these lots down to 40,000. square feet. Mr. Saland: I am more .then happy to do that. Mr. Orlowski: Does the Board have any other comments? Mr. Latham: I don't off hand, but I don' t want to see it all clustered to the south. Ms. Scopaz: I might just suggest that you might want to schedule this for a field inspection. A decision has to be made with regard to the Michael Adams subdivision. Whether .that application is still going to be pending or whether they are withdrawing. Have they indicated to you, Dave, whether they are withdrawing their application? Mr. Saland: All I have is a letter from Mr. Raynor, the agent, that they don' t plan to joint venture with us or proceed with us at this time. So as far as I am concerned, it does not do me any good to work with Mr. Adams. I have gone down that path twice and three times. He is elderly and whether he vacates or he does not care, I don' t know. I can' t hold my partners. I have been here for a year. I have gotten no where. Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Raynor did not have to go to far to send you that letter, did he? Planning Board . 22 August 15, 1988 Mr. Saland: No, he didn' t. I have tried. I am willing to compromise. I am willing to work. Mr. Latham: Would you like to keep in the middle, away from Sound or away from the Highway. Mr. Saland': That is what I am saying. I am saying maybe that is the solution. Mr. Orlowski: You are willing to- go down to the 40,000.? Mr. Saland: Absolutely. Mr. Orlowski: I think that the Board will definitely have to go out in the field and make an inspection.. Mr. Saland: The only other thou,,;.'-It- �"':at I hM.4 was for the first lot should be- a large lot, clustering score lots in the middle and then the last lot should be a large lot. That way you would. have the least impact on the water and visual. It would be the best use of the property.. Mr. Orlowski: Do you have any. sketches of this? Mr. Saland: No. What I am afraid to do so I keep coming up with sketches, it cost me money, it cost me time. Mr. Orlowski: I know this one. did take a..Iot. of.,time.. It was. basically what the Board was looking for. We can' t make Mr. Adam' s subdivide, because we are not here to do that. Let us go out in the field and take a look at it. We know you are will to go down to 40,000. Lets see what we can do with it and maybe give you a rough sketch on what we would like to see. Mr. Saland: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Next we have Sun Refining and. Marketing- Board to discuss this application for a site plan with the applicant. This parcel is located on the Main Road at Mattituck. SCTM #p1000-142-1-27 . Mr. Depietro: My name is Author DePietro. I am a lawyer. I am with the firm McNulty, DePietro and Spiess on Main Street in Riverhead. I have with me tonight my associate Michael Walsh. Who has submitted some of the doucmentations to your staff up until now. Also, with me is Linda. . .engineer, from the firm Sunoil refining and marketing. to answer any questions that you or your staff may have. This is an application to revise the existing service station on the northeast corner of Main Road and Factory Avenue in Mattituck, adjacent to the A & P Shopping Center. I anticipated in connection with this application that we will also be going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special exception permit and perhaps also either a variance or Planning Board 23 August 15, 1988 an ordinance. This is in the general business category. What. we want to do is put in a what is commonly known as a "Gas. and Go service facility" . Self service gas pumps. Eliminate the repair facility and put in its place a .convenience store. In connection with that it is going to be our position with the Zoning Board that the convenience store constitute a permissible accessary_ use under the Zoning ordinance. I don't think we need to get bogged down in those legal interpretations. because that is a Zoning Board matter and not your Board' s matter. What I really want to discuss is the general layout of the site plan as Sun has proposed it. And receive some comments from your Board and your staff with regard to that. So ,that we might refine the site plan and move ahead. I believe we have submitted several copies of the revised site plan. I have one with me. Mr. Orlowski: First question is, Do we need another convenience store? Mr. DePietro: I don't think. it is a question of need. I know that your 'Board has an obligation to balance uses so that there is not saturation in the community. I- submit that if it is a permitted use, as we believe it to be and as we believe the case law in New York states it to be and .Sunmarketing in .its wisdom as well as the other oil company.' s are making a finding that this is the way to go.. In a lot -of statistical studies done where these convenience stores are exactly how I am characterizing them. Accessary to the main. function of pumping gasoline. They usually generate about twenty to twenty five percent of the total business of the gas` station facility. Fortunately ninety percent or more of the people who use the convenience store came to the site to buy gasoline. Less .then ten percent of the people come just to the convenience store, and that might be late at night to buy a pack a cigarettes or something. The gas station is the magnet that draws to the site. The convenience store is there for the gasoline customers. Mr. Orlowski: Are they looking at all.-night operation here? Mr. DePietro: I really don' t know what hours of operations they are talking about at this point. Mr. Lowry: Next thing you know the A & P is going to want to Pump gas Mr. Orlowski: This is not a question and answer period. Mr.. DePietro: The gentlemen's comment is appropriate. It is something for your Board to consider. It is ,something that I would like to speak of. Again, the marketing studies that are being done nation wide and the planning and. zoning studies that are being done nation wide show a two fold thing occuring. It is almost like a two prong thing meeting in the middle. We have in the -south and in the south east, the Cumberline chain of stores, the Seven-Elevens, even in Brookhaven Town, that now have gas Planning Board 24 August 15, 1988 pumps in front of them and we have service stations that have convenience stores. There is sort of a confluence there. It is almost historically like we are coming full circle. If you recall in this Town and all over , the. east end, the first place that we ever saw gas pumps was in front of a general store. Now we have the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. I think traditionally whether you think of the gas pump in front of the general store or the convenience store behind the gas pump. it just establishes what we are contending, that there is an intimate relationship -between the sale of gasoline. Especially in a mobile society where people spend a lot of time in their cars and the sale of some other items consistent with the use. Mr. Orlowski: You had to give them that idea? Mr. DePietro: I think the form for that is the Zoning Board. Mr. Orlowski: Is the Zoning Board, that is just my question. Just a few comments on the site plan itself, The curb cut on the west side is too close to the intersection. A minimum of 75' , Mr. DePietro: There is an existing curb cut at that . point. What we are doing in the revised site plan is movin.g .it further from the intersection than it already is. I would think that . legally, since this is a valid preexisting lot in single and. segarate owner ship, that we would have a right to maintain. the curb cut and the apron where it now exist. What we are trying to do with this is to mitigate the impact to some extent and improve the site and the site plan by moving it further tothe east. Ms. Scopaz: Would you have any objection to removing that additional curb cut? Mr. DePietro: Yes. The reason being, if you note from the site plan, we have angled the entry way so that the eastern apron looks and is designed to appeal to west bound traffic to come in. The western apron is angled off to the south to .appeal to Past bound traffic. If the east bound traffic were forced to use the only remaining curb cut on the Main Road, namely the eastern one, I believe there will as .much, or more negative traffic impact then maintaining the two curb cuts as we now have them. .Mr. Orlowski: I. don' t now if the Board will agree with that. Also, this canopy is too close to the Main Road. The way it sits right now. Mr. DePietro: That is a modification that we were considering to move back. Mr. Orlowski: It appears that parking is insufficient for the sales area. We would like to. see street trees instead of these shrubs. Planning Board 25 August 15; 1988 Mr. DePietro: Would you be thinking of a tree like the Ornamental pear, they have been doing a lot of planting with. Mr. Orlowski: Something that you can see and not drive over. Mr. DePietro: But, also something that can be pruned up high so there will be sight distance. Mr. Orlowski: We want to keep the sight. We don't want a bunch of Christmas trees in there. Does the Board have any other comments? Mr. Mullen: Can you give us a list of products that you anticipate selling. Mr. DePietro: It would be part of the site plan. I am not prepared to. . . Mr. Mullen: I am quite disturbed, because one in particular in Peconic, the Mobile Station. I go in there and they sell babies diapers, stockings, charcoal, beer. You can get a meal there. I don't believe, this is my personal .opinion, that we should have a gas station go into a full service operation with everything except a funeral parlor. That is what we are getting out here. We don' t have the parking facilities. That is a very, very severe area. as far as traffic, as you are well. aware of. There is going to be a bad one there. With the new construction they are anticipating in that area, it is going.., to. be murder. I sat here a year or so ago with another situation and they were only going to sell soda, beer and this. I have gone in there and I don't buy gas there on purpose and it is a real disaster in what they sell. I would appreciate if you would give us some input as to what you anticipate doing. I want to alert you to the fact that this is going to be kept in our file. I will personally bull dog you if you get this approved .and you over step. I don't mean a couple of items. If you start to- sell for example, . furniture in there. Don' t laugh, it has happened. Mr. DePietro: I can fully sympathize with the Board. If an applicant makes a representation and you set some ground rules, you should to held to it. What you are suggesting to me, is that we create a categorical list of items.. We are talking about apples and not oranges. Or we are talking about items. . . .I would assume we are talking about convenience items related to people who come into a gas station, get some gas. They stop in and they want to get cigarettes, candy., coffee, a soft drink and something related like that. Mr. Mullen: Right. Mr. DePietro: I don't think we are talking about furniture. Mr. Mullen: That is what I would like to see. Planning Board 26 August 15, 1988 . Mr, Latham: I believe in the sale of beer but not in a filling station. Mr. DePietro: I agree. Even the state of Texas has finally passed a law that you can not have open beer in the car. There are a lot of good old boys that are very upset about it. I agree with you that gasoline and beer don' t mix. Ms. Scopaz: Mr. Orlowski, I -think Mr. Mullen brought up a very good point which could be used to perhaps address the problem that you discussed earlier with regard to removing one of the curb cuts. Perhaps the applicant could back up his assertion about leaving the curb cut in by providing the Board with some traffic analysis. Since they are aiming to increase the volume of business on the site, it is reasonable to expect that there will be a proportionate increa-se L traffic. Perhaps we can ask them to present- a s:^all traffic analysis of that corner and to discuss in there how the proposed change will have a beneficial impact on that. We could then use that to make the decision as to whether we want to remove the curb cut or perhaps restrict it to one way only, Mr. DePietro: We would be very happy to provide a traffic study. .substantiating what we think is the reasonableness of this application. Mr. Mullen: Could you make that in the summer time rather then in January or February? Mr. DePietro: We will try. Mr. Orlowski: Labor Day weekend will be alright. Mr. DePietro: Linda, do you _have anything to add? Linda: Just that they had mentioned about the canopy being too close to the road. how far would you like it to be? Mr. Orlowski: I am just looking at it .and I can tell. it is already too close. You would have to go to the Building Department and see what the set back is. I am not exactly sure what they are going to ask. Ms. Scopaz: Thirty five feet. Mr. Orlowski: Thirty five feet? Ms. Scopaz: There is nothing else along that stretch of road. that is that close, with one exception, and that is the North Fork Bank drive-in over hang. I would have to check that. You might want to check that out. The front yard set back is thirty five feet. Planning Board 27 August 15, 1988 Mr. DePietro: That would be from the property line not the curb line? Ms. Scopaz: The property line, right. The curb line was set by the State, but it would be from your property line. Mr. Orlowski: These canopies to look pretty immense out there. I don't know what to tell you as far as dressing it up. I don' t know if we have an elevation here or not. We .would like to have an idea of. what it is going to look like. Mr. DePietro: We have three, as far as the store itself is concerned, we have three alternate designs.. Mr. Mullen: You have other stores set up already in the County. Mr. DePietro: Yes. Mr. Mullen: Can you give us a couple of locations that are near by that we can take a look at. Mr. DePietro: Sure. When I submit the other items I will give you a list. Mr. Mullen: They are already established? Mr. DePietro: Correct. Mr. Latham: You are going to operate this? Mr. DePietro: It is going to be operated by Sun Oil; to my understanding. I have not gone into any great detail on that. I believe they are going to operate it. out of a parent corporation with employees. If they intend to license it or franchise it, we have nothing to hide. We will let you know. Mr. Latham.: It is probably not a proper question any way. I just thought I would ask it. Mr. Orlowski: Ms. Scopaz any other comments? Ms. Scopaz: I just want you to be aware of one thing. The Board has reviewed other gas stations .and it' s position on lighting . and canopies. You should be aware of when you come in with your canopy, that all the lighting, when it' s installed, has to be so directed downward that it does not shine off site. Mr. DePietro: I understand. Ms. Scopaz: Does your proposed canopy have light around the outside of it? Planning Board 28 august 15, 1988 Mr. DePietro: I believe there is rear illumination through letters and logos. It is florescent lighting coming through panels. Ms. Scopaz: Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this Board has approved any canopies like that. All of the canopies that have been approved are dark and the lighting is underneath. Mr. Orlowski: I think all of the existing canopies in this Town are up there unapproved, so we just want to forwarn you that we. are not going to put up with it any more. We want to do it right. Mr. DePietro: I have copies of all the cases you refer to and. that is why we are here before a formal application. Sun, when. they contacted me said we know that there has been problem, we know that there is tension. They wanted me to go to the Board wide open and candid and have a good dialog with you as to what ever we are going to do. Rather then build it first. Mr. Orlowski: We appreciate that and. that is why we called you in so we could let you know how we feel. Mr. DePietro: This particular site is not impacting in any way shape or form on the immediate surrounding residential area. It is probably the most intensely developed cores. of Mattituck as far as shopping center business is concerned, I did not mean to be facetious but the architectural design of the. movie theatre, the A & P the stuff on the .south side many .of which the lots don' t have any curb cuts. I don't really feel to bad making this application. Mr. Orlowski: That was another Board that approved. the rest. We would like to see it done right. When these canopies go up, especially right there at the top of the hill. I know now with . out it being there that it' s going to be a site for sore eyes. We would like to see it done in good taste and with some kind of facade that is the best looking thing there that is possible. Mr,. DePietro: Any design input your Board may have, we are happy to. . . Mr. Latham: Something like the North Fork Bank. Mr. . Mullen: We will see what they have in other areas. Mr. Latham: Is there going to -be any diesel or large trucks or don't they have room for that? Mr. DePietro: I don' t believe they intend to pump that. Mr. Mullen:. It does not show it on the map. Mr. Orlowski: Are those canopies needed? 'r I> • Planning Board 29 August 15, 1988 Mr. DePietro: It is hard 'to do self service in this climate without something over your head. Mr. Orlowski: O.K. Any other questions from the Board? Board: No. Mr. DePietro: If there any questions that come up feel free. Mr. Orlowski: Well, get us this information and if there are some others that you can get us pictures of, we sure would . like to take a look at it. Mr. DePietro: Thank you for your time. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you.. Mr. Orlowski: We have to set the next meeting. Lets make .it Tuesday, the 30th. I will entertain that motion. Mr. Edwards: 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, Edwards. Mr. Orlowski: Opposed? So ordered. Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r M. Thorp, Secretary hold Town Planning Board DECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK LBENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR. CHA RMAN DATE I . HOUR a 0P k Town Clerk, Town of Southbld'