Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-05/11/1987 P s � , T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES The S^uthold Town Planning Board held a regular meeting on Monday, May 11, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, at 7: 30 p.m. Present were: Chairman Bennett Orlowski,Jr. M;-mber. William F. Mullen, Jr. Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr. Member Kenneth Edwards Member Richard G. Ward Town Planner Valerie Scopaz Secretary Diane M. Schultze Planning Consultant, James Bryer Absent: Victor Lessard, Executive Administrator 7: 30 p.m. Public hearing on the question of approval of the`spreliminary maps for the major subdivision of Long Pond Estates, Section 2, located at Laurel Avenue, Southold. Mr. Orlowski: I will call this-meeting to order, the first-c order of business is a public hearing on the question of approval of the major subdivision ofs:Long Pend Estates, Section 2 located at Laurel Avenue, Soutohld. We have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times, signed by Richard Williams and notorized by Mary Deegnan, we have proof of publicationlin the Long Island Traveler Watchman signed by Pat Woods and notorized by Barbara Forbes. At this time, everthing in the file is in order for preliminary hearing. I will ask:_if there are any objections to this major subdivision? Hearing none. Are there any endorsements of this major subdivision? Mr. Henry E. Raynor,Jr. : Mr. Chairman and the Board, my name is Henry Raynor, I am the agent for Long Pond Section 2. The proposed subdivision is for 13 lots clustered with retaining 6 acres of open space. . The map you have before you has been amended to reflect the report of Inspector Davis as well,as the report of Ray Jacobs, Superintendent of Highways. The applicant is presently pursuing before the Village Board, water contracts for this section.of the subdivision. The Planning Boardddeclared themselves lead agency and this received a negative declaration on Planning Board Page 2 5/11/87 Mt-i. Raynor: on Jung 9, 1986 as well .as sketch plan approval on June 9 , 1986. I believe this proposal is in;compliancd with both thbdsubdivision regulations as well as the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold. I would requestta favorable deterimination. If :hhe Board has any questions, I would be happy to aid them with them. Thank youvvery much. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you. Are there any other endorsements of this subdivision. Hearing none. Is there anyone out there neither pro nor con but with information pertaining to this subdivision thatt,,woi4d be of interest to the Board? Hearing none. Any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen, (none) ; Mr. Latham, (none) ; Mr. Ward (none) ; Mr. Edwards (none) ; Mr. Bryers (none) ; Valerie (none) . Okay, being no further questions, I will declare this hearing closed and thankyou for-,:coming down. On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, June 1, 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, . Southold as,L:the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards , Ward On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, June 1, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold as the time andcplace for a public hearing onthe question of approval of the minor subdivision of Ana G. Stillo located at Orient. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Edwards, ,TWard =` On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, _seconed by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planiir;g Board, following a field inspection, recommend to the Building Department that allcertificate of occupancy be issued to the Main Street Market Located at Southold. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards, Ward Planning Board Page 3 5/11/87 Lillian Vishno - The Board reviewed this _proposal for 3 lots on 19, 298 square feet located at Corwin Street, Greenport. The Board of Appeals was requesting input from the Board with regard to this. Mr. Latham stated that he had looked at the site and noted that the lots in the area were all small. He also noted that this would mean three extra lots for the Vilage of Greenport water and sewer supply. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Bryer had also inspected the site. They felt that the site was small and could-.not support three building lots, as well as the fact that this would set a precedent. On a motion:. .made by Mr. Edwards, seconed by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board give the following input to the Board of Appeals with regard to the minor subdivision of Lillian L. Vishno located at Greenport: 1. The Board is not in favor of this proposal since it would set;:a;>precedetn for further breakdown of smaller lots in the area. Vote of the Board: Ayes : Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Edwards, Ward 7c45 p.m. Public hearing on the question of approval of the final maps for the major subdivision to be known as "Reydon Court" ; developed by Daniel Marcucci located at Reydon Drive and North Bayview Avenue, Southold. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, the next order of business is apublic hearing on the question of approval of the major subdivision of Daniel Marcucci to be known as "Reydon .Court" located at Reydon Drive and North Bayview Avenue, Southold. We have proof of publication in the SUffolk Times, signed by Richard Williams and notorized by Mary Deegnan, we have proof of publication in the Longr:Island Traveler Watchman signed by Pat Wood and notorized by Barbara Forbes. At this time, everything is in order for a final hearing. We have health:.-.department approval and at this time, I will ask if there are any objections to this major subdivision? (At this time, Mr. Edward J. McGern, f:o.rmek,,re.s:. Reydon Shores, took -.the map from the file for his review and the review of the homeowners of Reydon Shores who,-..,were present. ) Okay, I will continue with any objections to this major subdivision? MKr. McGern: Did you receive a letter from Ahthony Generosa? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. McGern: Tony sent me a copy which I did not receive, he sent it Federal Express and may I borrow that copy to read. Planning Board Page 4 5/11/87 Mr. Orlowski: I don' t have that one. Mr. McGern: We' ll omit the salutation. Since I am unable to attend this hearing this evening, I haveaabked my neighbor to present this letter for me. Okay, that answeres that. My husband and I respectfully request re-evaluation of our request which were made by us:� and many of our neighbors at the December 7, 1986 hearing. For the approval of the preliminary maps, we ask that the property in question be developed in a manor that is consistent with thb existing development on the North/West and South/West side, the last side is undeveloped. We strongly request that the cluster be pldced at the Southern end of the property, away from the long existing community on the North side, this would be the community of Reydon Shares. We aye all aware of the 8train4 on the:water hupply, this would at least serve as a crucial buffer between septic systems. The properties on the East,; ehd southeast sides are undeveloped and on one side ther are only four houses. The Planning Board is responsibly: to serve the best interests of the Community and its residents since the Board is responsible to the elective conglomarte and since -we, Reydon Shores, are the only taxpayers group requesting consideration, our neighbores and I urge that you honor our request of placing the building cluster at the southern portion of the land. Thank you for your attention to the above. Sincerely Louise Rebel. Now, this one is from Anthony F.X. Generosa, former President of Reydon Shores, Propprty Owners Association. Dear Mr. Chairman and Honorable members of the Board. I understand this matter is on your agenda for:as-public hearing sehedtled to-•be:- .ih�)d1_on )Monday evening May 11, 1987 . Unfortunately, I probably will not be able to attend, however, I wish to make an additional statement to the Board as a resident of Reydon Shores, past president of Reydon Shores Property oAssociation and as respresentative of the resident 6f residents-of Reydon Shores. Unfortunately, Mr. Generosa is an attorney and rather long winded, but I will continue. On December 8, 1986 in all the capacity set forth above I made my position known to you and followed it up by letter to the Board onDecember 19. Other residents of Reydon Shores made known their opposition to you in writing. Others made known their opposition be oral prsentation to you at the December meeting. I am puzzled by the proposal to locate the housing so close to boundaries of Reydon Shores. I can understand more easily the reasons for proposing to build the houses so close to the houses in Reydon Shores, if these houses were part of the Reydon Shores development. It would make sense for convenience of access to Reydon Shores beach and Marina, however, since this proposed development is not part of Reydon Shores and there is no entitlement to the use of the beach and marina it would make more sense to have the cluster housing situated at the farthest feasible point from the existing housing in Reydon Shores, it is my concern as well as the concern of the rsidents of Reydon Shores who abut this proposed subdivsion at such a close proximity to the existing houses in Reydon Shores might well create undo problems as far as fresh water supply, drainage, and sewarage. Of course, if the subdivision were developed along traditional, not cluster, this potential problem could be averted also. Very truly yours, 'Anthony Generosa. Thank you. Planning Board Page 5 5/11/87 Mr. Orlwoski: Thank you. Ate there any other objections to the proposal? Robert Kruger: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Robert Kruger. I too am a member of the Reydon Shores property Owners Association and a property owner. I have listened for two evenings here and everyone is saying the same things, you must be as tired of listening as we are. But, it does make sense to someone, such as myself less sophisticated than you in terms of zonig and so on, that if in deed we are going to go to the cluster of the future then for heavens sake let's put the cluster at the South end of the total property and have the egress and access on Bayview not Reydon Drive which is a realitively small road. Of course, our first concern would be to develop the land according to the conventional and traditional and the property that abuts both sides. Failing that, if the cluster must be with us, then put it at the South end with the egress onto North Bayview. Mr. Orlwoski: Any other objections? Melanie Fiedler: My name is Melanie Fiedler I live �on Reydon Drive, right across the street from where the proposed housing will be . The road that will come out of the cluster housing, is going to, I feel create a traffic hazard. My husband was here at the last meeting and he is a Southold Town Police Officer and stated that at that meeting. And they had mentioned putting the road at another location but when I look at the map, the road is in the same locateion. I am talking about the cluster the circle and the way it comes out. There is our horseshoe shapped driveway, Reydon Drive that is coming out and now a private road on our side where DeFriest lives. All in one little section with cars, kids, people walking and I feel it will be a traffic hazard. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Any other objections? Hearing none. Are there any endorsements of this subdivision? Patricia C. Moore, Esq. : Good evening, my name is Pat Moore, from the office of Edson and Bruer. I represent Mr. Marcucci and this subdivision application. At this stage, we have gone through and received the health department approval, we have received road improvements and drainage improvements, the proposed drainage improvements. The bond .has been set and there are covenants and restrictions that were forwarded to this Board for their consideration. I would like to state for the record that this Board has considered each of the steps of the subdivision process, the locateion of the road, the platting involved in these subdivisions themselves. And, we are here to finalize what has been a very thought out and thorough process all along. Thank you. Mr Orlowski: Okay, are there any other endorsements to the subdivision? Hearing none. Is there anyone here neither pro nor con but may have information pertaining to this subdivison 'which may be of interest to the Board. Mr. Marcucci: My name is Dan Marcucci, I am the developer of the property. As far as the road, on the original we did move the road 50' toward the south. There was some discussion about the road, the lights, possibly shining into someowns bedroom at that time, the road was moved up and the engineer is here, Howard Young, who did the plans so if there is any question, I here alot of discussion going on ab out that, it is a matter of fact that it has been moved. And, Mr. Bruer, has pointed out Planning Board Page 6 5/11/87 Mr. ,Marcucci: that the Highway Department, on sevaral visits to the site , has approved the proposed plan. Mr. Kruger: May I ask the young lady. Mr. Orlowski: This is not a question and answer hearing.' Mr. Kruger: She mentioned road improvements, which road. Reydon Drive? Mr. Orlowski: I assume that is the road within the subdivision only. Any other comments. Hearing none, any questions from the Board? Doctor Karpas May I, I just wanted to point out that the opening of this road entering into Reydon Drive which is a narrow road, much narrower than North Bayview which is onthe other side. This particular opening will now be a forth opening all within 100' into this very narrow drive. There are three now on the west side and this opening which will no be serving seven houses will be coming opposite these other three. So, the traffic, it will actually be like a four sided corner for the multiple. Four corner section on a county Road. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you, any other comments? Hearing none, questions from the Board? Mr. Ward, none, Mr. Edwards, no, Mr. Mullen, none; Mr. Latham, none; Mr. Bryer; none; Ms. Scopaz. Ms. Scopaz: Can I just make one suggestion with regard to the cluster. Perhaps the residents would be ameniable to extending the open space behind Lot 1, it presently exists behind all the lots except Lot 1, perhaps you could extend the open space up and shorten lot 1, it is an oversized lot, so you have more than enough lot area. If you put in a 50' wide conservation easement not,-to be disturbed. I understand the property is wooded, perhaps that would be a way of addressing some of their concerns. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, Being no further comments, I will declare this hearing closed and thank you for coming down. Mr. James Gray was present for a pre-submission conference to discuss the site plan for mini-storage buildng located at Horton's Lane, Southold. This application is also pending before the Board of Appeals for a special exception which is pending. Mr. William F. Mullen, Jr. abstained from any discussion since he has a working relationship with Mr. Gray. Mr. Orlwoski: Mr. James Gray has scheduled a pre-submission conference to discuss the site plan for Pudge Corp. located at Horton's Lane, Southold for construction of mini-storage buildings. Board to give input to the Board of Appeals for a special exception which is pending right now. Mr. Mullen: Mr. Chairman, I will refrain from any discussion because I am involved with. the applicant. Mr. Gray: This was designed at one time for two-story and we stuck to one story. The site plan stayed the same, but what I did is bring brocuhres on the type of buildings that will be going in there. Planning Board Page 7 5/11/87 Mr. Bryer: Why do you need sewage disposals then. Mr. Gray: I don't. Mr. Bryer: Well, it says here that water supply and sewage disposal systems will meet Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Mr. Gray: If we ever put any thing like that in, but we are not going to. I think that is a compulsary on all plans, the person who drew this up is not an architect, he is an engineer. There is no bathroom at all going in the unit. Mr. Bryer: That is why I thought, maybe you can have that note erased, it is misleading. It makes it look like there 'is going to be sewage disposals. Mr. ORlowski: Right now, this is at the Zoning Board ofAppeals for the sue in the zone. They are asking also for some comments and that has changed slightly from the two story to the one store. Does the Board have any comments? Mr. Latham? Mr. Latham, : I am not happy about the steel building. Mr Gray: Well, I agree with you, but these buildings are absolutely beautiful. They '-do a nice job. Mr. Latham: Yes, but in Southold. Mr. Gray: It will be landscaped and there will be ground lighting and I have gone over it with the Board. of Appeals and you can get fire trucks all around it. So, there is no problem there. Mr. Latham; Can you covenant that these will not be converted into something later. Mr. Gray: No, I would tear them down if they were ever going to be changed. It will only be open from 8 in the morning to 5 in the evening. Mr. Edwards: Will it be lit at night? Mr. Gray: Ground lighting. Mr. Orlowski: Will there be a gate. Mr. Gray: Yes. Mr. Ward: This is a very intense site plan because of the parking requirements. Is there -any way to keeping the parking from spoiling the buildings. Mr Gray: There will be a green cyclone along the buildng. Mr. Ward: WEll, with buffering all around, with a one story building, it will be much less of an impact than the previous proposal. Mr. Gray: I would like to leave it open to the post office though, becuase if the people going to the post office see that the buildings are there they will use them. Planning Board Page 8 5/11/87 Mr. Bryer: I agree with what Mr_ Ward said, I .think that much blacktop will be a big problem and can't see that all that is needed. I would rther see some of that parking area be eliminated with more landscaping. Mr. Gray: Then, I will make a 10' or 15' buffer -around. Mr. Bryer: Did you determine why you need the number of buildings? Mr. Grey: This will be built in phases. There are very vacancies throughout the country and expecially the resort and college areas. Ms. Scopaz: The parking spaces that are shown here, where will the actual entrance to the buildings be. Mr. Gray: On both sides. Mr. Bryer; Benny, can I make one more comment. I would really like to see something on the plan ofnot having chemicals stored in there because that could create a problem with a fire. If you could put 'a note on the plan tht we don't want any storage of chemicals there or something like that. Mr. Gray: I will have the architect draw up a letter to present to the Chairman of the Board of Appeals, and perhaps we can review it with the fire department. Mr. Orlowski: You can't legally anyway. Mr. Gray: There will be no storage of any chemicals or paint and if anybody brings a boat in there they will have to do it with empty gas tanks. Mr. Lessard: I think you could control this with the lease that you wll have to draw up. Mr. Gray: We have that in the lease now and it meets all the insurance requirements. Mr. Carmine DeSpirito was present for an appointment before the Board to discuss the site plan for construction of a two-family house at Young's Avenue, Southold. This proposal received a special exception by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Orlowski: Site plan for Mr. : and Mrs. Carmine DiSpirito, Board to refer this site plan to the Building Department for certification. This is for a two-family house and received a special exception from the Board of Appeals. Good evening Mr. DiSpirito, I see you are going to build a two-family house. Do you have any problem withthe conditions of the Board of Appeals. The approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Each dwelling unit apartment shall have a minimum area of 8501square feet; 2. The second dwelling unit exterior entranceway shall not be at the front road side. 3. The subject premises shall remain a -minimum area of 160,000 square feet as applied for this two-family dwelling use. Planning Board Pge 9 5/11/87 Mr. Orlowski: This is new to us. It is a new structure. It is probably one of the few legal ones in Southold Town. Mr. DiSpirito: I had gone back to the surveyor from the original site plan which I had submitted to you, and there were alot of additions put into this one that were not on the first one. So, these are all the requirements that you should need. Mr. Orlowski: We address the site plan, so you have all the site plan elements on and you look like you have everything you need, for a two family house anyway. ON a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that teh Southold Town Planning Board refer the site plan for Carmine and Donna Marie DiSpirito locatd at Youngs Avenue, Railroad Avenue, Southold for construction of a two-family dwelling to the Building Department for certification. Site plan dated as amended February 25, 1987. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edward, Latham s George and Jane Kaytis subdivision at Southold Mr. Orlowski: Next we have George and Jane Kaytis, Board to give input tothe Board of Appeals with regard to this set off of 40,000 square feet from 2.361 acres at Paradise Point Road, Southold. Only comment is the zoning board would have to decide if it is a hardship, any other comments. Mr. Bryer; I think we should tell them that we don't approve it at all. If we keep doing this it is just going to set a precedent and they are just going to keep. I would check this out, I can't find that it has ever been merged I went back as far as the assessor's records and I just think if we keep, if we don't send over some comment to the Board of Appeals, we will be, destroying the 2 acre zoning. I just don't agree with it. Mrs. Moore, Esq. : I would like to respond to that. I understand the theory but you have to keep in mind that we are also trying to create some mix and blend in the Town so that there are more than just two acres. So that someone my age or any age car. buy a lot. You just can not always buy a two acre lot. Thank goodness for set offs because with out a set off there would not be lots. That is what the purpose of a set off is. Mr. Bryer: I think the purpose of the set off was if a lot had been merged because of common ownership or the same name or whatever, then .to split that back up. I don't think the set off was designed to make smaller lots. Mrs. Well, the Kaytis family all lives around -there, they are all related. Planning Board Page 10 5/11/87 Mrs. Moore: Had they anticipated that there was going to be a two-acre zoning, they would have subdivided it alot sooner. Since you cannot anticipate these things, they are coming to you to ask for a set off. Obviously, it is you decision. Please keep in mind that not just to say as a matter of course, no we don't want this. I think the plannng technique and consulting with the planners then you make a decision. Mr. Orlowski: I think the biggest problem with Jim has brought up is that it is surrounded by two - acre lots. And, the large lots surrounding it, we don't want to cut the density on all those lots. It you have a two - acre lot that is worth 80,000 dollars does that mean with two one-acre lots tht they each sell for $40,000. Mrs. Moore: No, but maybe $50,000 or $60,000 which is substantially less. Mr. Orlowski: I would like to see it. That is not up to us. Mrs. Moore: THe proposed master plan calls for one acre. Mr. Bruer: You through out the two acre businss, if you look at two acre zoning in the Town of Soutohld. It was basically' a political compromise when the Board, Town Board, was either going to do two acre zoning or moratorium. Politically expediencly of the time was to do the two acre zoning quickly. As a matter of fact when the Town Board orignially did it, they eliminated all one acre lots and had tocome back three months later and change it. I don't think it was the intent to eliminate all one acre lots, and you have to also consider taht there are one acre lots which have been grandfathered. Mr. Ward: I think your strongest point is that the Master Plan is calling for it to be one acre and I think that should be your pitch. Well, I think we can pass that comment along. At this point that this is not enacted is not one acre that they should determine hardship. On a motion made by Mr.Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board give the following input to the Board of Appeals with regard to the set off proosal for Geroge Kaytis to set off 40,000 square feet from 2.361 acres at Paradise Point Road, Southold: The Board does not endorse this proposal since it does not comply with the current or proopsed zoning. It is also noted that most of the lots in the surrounding area are 2 acres or more. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham. Planning Board Page 11 5/11/87 Raeburn/Murphy minor subdivision at Cutchogue Mr. Orlowski: Board to consider the request of the attorney to override the covenants recommended by the County Planning Commission and set this proposal for a final public hearing. • We already had one final, this proposal was conditionally approved under one acre zoning. That conversation was over the telephone, and I have nothing in writing from our attorney. This has been around for quite some time. This is up at the end of Bridge Lane in Cutchogue. This is an old subdivision that had a final hearing and was subject to a few conditions which were not yet met. They were Suffolk County Planning recommendations that wer subject to that. Mr. Latham: The plan never went through. Mr. Orlowski: We had a final public hearing and there were conditions and they were not met, as a matter of fact, I guess they can't be met. Mr. Bruer: Would you like me to give •the Board a little background. Mr. Orlooski: Sure, you can remember it. Mr. Bruer: Alright, this is a piece of property were a Ms. Raeburn and a Ms. Murphy bought a piece of property up there on the Sound and they went and they got a building permit and they put up a house and got a certificate .of occupancy,for the house. They there after .bought the adjoining land to the east and with that they divided into the property. They divided the house lot up there with a certification of occupancy and a brand new mortgage from Citibank. It is to be pointed out that the c.o. that was originally granted and is being used up there does not encompass the property as it presently exists by way of separate deeds. This turned into be a three lot minor subdivision which to the best of my knowledge through a petition action by way of a judge in court, they petitioned the property. They said Ms. Murphy gets tis one, in other words Ms. Murphy and Ms. Raeburn, they don't get along. If you recall at' the time, I was not involved in it, but Mr. Stankevich represented these .two ladies at that time and I believe they were talking about a judgement presented and the Supreme Court judge said that this is the way the property is period and whatever. The two lots that are vacant there have also gone through two tax sales, separately conveying them. So, in effect, what it is saying is that "the property is in two separate owners, has been and the way it is laid out on the map. However, you have before you in your file you have Mr. TAsker's letter of March which says that for this subdivision to be finally approved, you would have to comply with the three conditions that were set bythe Board in 1975. The first consideration is to take into consideration the County Planning. recommendations. Two, it would have to establish access by way of the Zoning Board: The Zoning LBoard to the property immediately east of this property has granted a conditional 280-a access. That is Becky Johnson. Subject to, there was a house on it and then they did very substantial- renovations on it, 95% and they had to do everything over again and they had 280-a access on it, subject to her actually moving ,the right of way that services those properties to its proper location. Becasue the right of way goes illegally allover two or three pieces of property and somebody just dug a trench for the electrical and ran it up to the house. Planning Board Page 12 5/11/87 Mr. Bruer: But, I believe if everything is put in its proper right of way, I spoke to Tom Shay of Chicago Title and we have guaranteed, insurable access. They made a settlement with Bokina, I believe, they are in the stages, Mr. Cardinale represents Mr. Bokina-and said it was in the works. One of the conditions of that subdivision calls fora continuance of a right through Ms. Murphy's piece I guess at that time to service Ms. Johnson. Well, I am representing Ms. Raeburn and I have no control over Ms. Murphy and my understanding is that there are hard feelings there and I have been told Ms. Murphy wouldn't do anything to help her, Ms. Johnson.- This gets us into the County recommeddations and one of the County recommendations was that lots .2 and 3 use the same stairway down to the beach and as long as these people own it they will never have any agreement and it will never happen. Ther is nothing I dan .do -on behalf of Ms. Raeburn for the Murphy piece. So, I have to ask you, particularly since Johnson now has access by way of the Bokina property. Mr. Orlowski: That right of way is on Bokina property, east and west. Mr. Bruer: Well, what happened, the record right of way goest to here which is why the Planning Board toservice lot 3 made the existance of the right here through lot no. 2 and one of the conditions was to continue it through here and there is no way I can comply with that. It was different in 1979 and this was done by judicial decree, also as I mentioned the two tax bills. Mr. Orlowski: We still need access to lot No. 3. Mr. Bruer: Right, you would have to do that becuase it ends here. You would have to leave it the way it is onthe map here. Mr. Orlwoski: Since it is out of the subdivision, the Zoning Board will still have to give its approval of the right of way. ' Mr. lessard:. yes. Mr. Bruer: It is a conditional right of way. Mr. Orlowski: The only piece that we will be approving is that little piece that is in the subdivision itself. Mr. Bruer: I think they did approve it subject to relocating and it actually being legitimized. Mr. Lessard: The Planning Board has the authority for the road within the subdivision. It is my ,understanding that Lot No. 2 was cut in half by a Supreme--Court Judgh. Mr. Bruer: No, it was the divided between Lot No. 2 and Lot NO. 3. Mr. Lessard: Well, it better stay that way. Ms. Scopaz: I would like to address the Board, may I ask Mr. Bruer a question. Is the person who doesn't want to cooperate (Murphy) has she given her consent to your continuing with the subdivision? Planning Board Page 13 5/11/87 Mr. Bruer: To the best of my knowledge, no, I 'learned. of this last October when we were before the ZBA for the purposes of getting a variance through the department and at this point, I think Mr. Bryer and Mr. Emilita gave an opinion to the Zoning Board and said hey, wait a minite, this was not an approved subdivision. And, I only knew it at that time, because I was representing someone who was buying it, Ms. Raeburn is a New Jersey resident and her attorney asked me to continue her application to get it legitimized. Something had to be done. Ms. Scopaz: Board should be aware that in cases where a justice or a Supreme Court Decision subdivides property, and I don't want to use the word subdivide, but divide property amount two heirs, for instance, or ina civil dispute, the property is divided. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is recognized by the Planning Board as a subdivision. This is only part of a civil actionand it does nt mean that the Planning Board has to recognize it. Mr. Orlowski: Well, we can finalize it and just worry about the subdivision. On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that theSouthold Town Planing Board override the County Planning Commissionresolution with regard to the minor subdivisionof Raeburn/Murphy located at Cutchogue pursuant to the request of the attorney for the applicnat. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards,Latham, On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board set Monday, June 1, 1987 at 7:45 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall as the time and place for a public hearing on the question of approval of the minor subdivision for Raeburn/Murphy located at Cutchogue. This hearing is a re-hearing as the original approval of the subdivision has not been finalized. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board give the following input to the Board of Appeals with regard to the application for Irwin and Sondra Thompson: The Planning Board is not in favor of the lot line change which would create an insufficient side yard; however, if the variance application warrents approval by the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board requests a 50' side yard distance be maintained between any new building to the East (on other land now or formerly of Thompson) and the existing building. The Board feels that it is the intent of the ordinance that a 50' side yard be maintained Planning Board Page 14 5/11/87 between buildings. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham Raymond and Eleanor Kerester subdivision at Southold Mrs. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. was present as attorney -for the applicants. On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare themselves lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the minor subdivison proposal for Raymond and Eleanor Kerester located at ,North Bayview Road and Paradise Point Road, Southold. This will be coordinated withthe Town Trustees. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham Mr. Orlowski: The Board of Appeals has granted a varaince for insufficient width. Since, this is on the Bay, we should refer this to the Trustees for comments. Also, from the Zoning Board, in the Board approval subject to the following conditions: number 1 was no disturbance of salt water wetlands or wetland grases defined by Chapter 97 of the Town Code. No construction or development or any other activities. You question that, why did they do that Victor. Mr. Lessard: Apparantly there are alot of wetlands through the middle of it. Mr. Bryer: There is. Mr. Lessard: I think the position is that they do not want to destroy wetlands to allow access. Mr. Orlowski: The Zoning Board of Appeals in their approval and they approved it, subject to , nodisturbance of saltwetlands or fresh water wetland grasses as defined by Chapter 97 of the Code. No construction, development or any other activities. No, I don't think you will develop a road a long the Bay, development is what you are going to do. Or, any other activities, so what does, that mean. Mrs. Moore: I think they mean when you disturb the wetlands, then you have to reapply. Mr. Lessard: Evidently there are wetlands going across those wetlands down there. Mrs. Moore: We have a survey. Mr—Lessard: They are saying to get to the buildable area, that does not give you the right to destroy wetlands. Planning Board Page 15 5/11/87 Mr. Orlowski: Okay, we will set that for a field inspection and get a claraificatin on that, just to make sure that we are reading this the right way. Mrs. Moore: Did you receive the survey, the Zoning Board had a survey that they asked that we prepare showing the wetlands onthat particular survey. Have you received a copy of that? Mr. Orlowski: No. So, if you could get that to us for our inspection, and review. Winds Way Building Corp. 4 lots on 13.5 acres at Linden Avenue, Cutchogue This proposal for final action following apublic hearing will be held until the recommendations from the Suffolk County Planning Commission are received. Winds Way Building Corp. 4 lots on 11.88 acres at New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue Mrs. Patricia C. Moore, Esq was present for this applicant. The Board held final action on this proposal, following a final hearing, in order to get more information with regard to the right-of-way. It was noted that Inspector John W. Davis was concerned with drainage which must be addressed in order to prevent drainage into the wetlands of the adjoining property. Mr. Bryer and Mr.. Lessard inspected the site. It was the consensus of the Board that the right-of-way be extended through Lot No. 4 tothe property line abutting the land of John and Anne Elak and that leaching basins be installed onthe end of the head wall so that the runoff will not cross the lot and drain into the creek. It was . also discussed that if the calculation of runoff could be obtained from the farmland this information may be helpful in providing adequate drainage for the right-of-way and site. Measures should be taken during and immediately after construction on each lot to insure that eroded soil and other deleterious materials will not be carreid into the marsh. On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planing Board grant a 90-day extension on the fiing of the final application for the major subdivision to" be known as "Charles Acres" located at Peconic, ( to expire 90-days from the date of this resolution) pursuant to the request of the applicant in order to receive Health Department Approval. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham Planning Board Page 16 5/11/87 On a motion made by Mr. Latham, .seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town .Planning Board accept and request compliance with the access road report from Inspector John W. Davis, report No. 584, withregard to the access road improvements on the right-of-way within the minor subdivision for John Sepenoski, located at Peconic. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham Sal Prato site plan located at Greenport The Board reviewed this site plan for construction of an electrical contractor's shop located at Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport. Mr. Bryer stated that he had inspected the site and saw a potential problem with regard to the wetlands and fill which was propsoed on the site. Mr. Bryer stated that plant species are questionable with regard to the wetland and the limit of the fill. It was noted that the plan had been certified by the Building Department. It was the consensus of the Board to request that the Town Trustees and. Conservation Advisory Council inspect the site and the applicant will be asked to stake were the fill will be placed. On a motion made byMr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept and request compliance with Inspector John W. Davis' report No. 585 with regard to the required improvements on the access road within the proposed minor subdivisionfor MacKenzie, Ram Realty, Pelusolocated at Orient. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham On, a motionmade by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the set off of James E. Cross located at Main Road, Cutchogue to set off 78,508 square feet from 28.458 acres, survey dated as mapped April 3, 1986, subject: 1. Approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, pursuant to Article 6. 2. Review and consideration of the comments from the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward, Edwards, Latham Pudge Corp - It was the consensus of the Board to set this new proposal for a field inspection. This is for 3 lots on 6 acres, 1 lot in the B zone, located at County -Route 48, Southold. Mr. William F. Mullen, Jr. , abstained from any discussion since he has a working relationship withthe applicant. Planning Board Page 17 5/11/87 Helmut Hass - subdivision at Peconic. Mr. Orlowski: Okay, next we have Helmut Hass, Board to consider the request of the attorney for the applicant to override the Suffolk County Planning Commission with regard to this set off located at County Route 48, Peconic. Okay, Suffolk County Planning has resolved to disapprove subject to the following creation of a subdivision with substandard lots, they have the variance, for subdivision will result in the creation of a landlocked parcel-services by a right-of-way. Creation of a landlocked parcel puts the Zoning Board of Appeals. in an awkward position of having to grant a building permit for a lot under Sectin 280-a. Mr. Ward: Just in answer to the one question of landlocked parcels, if a flag lot had been made, the comment would go away. They are concerned of not having actual property on the road. Mr. Orlowski: In the past and since I have been here we have always serviced the lots in the subdivision with a right of way over the existing property. It iscreating problems because the assessors are taking the right of way since it is a separate piece and picking it up as a single and separate parcel. I know this very well, because I am fighting to get my right of way back. And, what Mr. Ward has said doing it withflag lots is probably the most practical way, but in this case, being so narrow, a lot, I don't know. Mr. Ward: It could go with 10 or 15' it would be minimal Mr. Lessard: I thought we always frowned on flag lots. Mr.. Orlowski: We did, but we ran into all kinds of problems and now that Valerie is here we will be reviewing that with our attorney in the next wek or so. I don't have a letter stating that we override these. I have the last letter, my clients pending application simply requests that Board legalize what has been in continuing existance since 1968. The parcel in question has existing access over County Route and is not and will not be landlocked since ther is an existing :circular right-of-way giving access to and from the highway. That is still not a request to override the Planning Commission. Mr. Lessard: Is there going to be anything created behind this lot? Mr. Ward: It is a 290' right-of-way. Mr. Orlowski: Servicing one house it would be simple, a right of way is more favorable with maintaince by four people rather than flag lots and having four roads going to one parcel. But, it does create a problem down at the assessors office and what is happening is alot of these are being abandoned and going for tax sale. Ms. Scopaz: If the Board would like, I could research this and submit a memo to the Board or report with regard to the two options. Mr. Orlowski: That would be good and the letter from the attorney must Planning Board Page 18 . 5/11/87 specifically request that the board override the County. On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planing Board accept and requst compliance with Inspector John W. Davis' report No. 589 with regard to the access road improvements for the access road within the minor subdivision of Kings Bay Partners located at Orient. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Ward,. Edwards, Latham Being no further business to come before the Board, on a motion made by Mr Mullen, seconded by Mr. Orlowski, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Schultze, Secretary W"®r., Southold Town Planning Board Bennett Orlowski,Jr. , Chair n RECEIVED AND FILED Y THE SOUTFILOLD TC VIN CLF-PIK r DATE t-/a HOUR /0 M Town Clerk, Town of Sou old