HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-10/19/1987 T D
5 Y
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
Planning Board Minutes
November 9 , 1987
� 1
fJ
The Southold Town Planning Board held '-a'-regular meeting
on Monday, November 9 , 1987 at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold at 7: 30 p.m.
Present were:
Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Member William F. Mullen,Jr.
Member G. Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Member Richard G. Ward
Member Kenneth Edwards
Town Planner Valerie Scopaz
Executive Administrator Victor Lessard
Administrative Assistant Diane M. Schultze
7: 30 p.m. Public hearing for public comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the site plan for Marina
Bay Club located at New Suffolk, SCTM # 1000-117-8-18.
Mr. Orlowski: Good evening, I would like to call this hearing
to order. First order of business is a public hearing. We
have proof of publication in the Long Island Traveler Watchman,
we have proof of publication in the Suffolk Times signed
by Christina Contento and notorized by Mary Degnan. We have
a complete Draft Environmental Impact Statement and we are
here tonight to hear comments for this. Please step up and
give your name for the Secretary.
Jack Fisher: My name is Jack Fisher and I live in New Suffolk.
We have a number of things that we were concerned about and
we have discussed it with Mr. Carr and his experts and he
is attempting to address these concerns as the project develops.
We will submit a written memorandum within the 10 commitment
period. Once we have an opportunity to study the comments
fo the various agencies. Firstly, as .I said we are concerned
with the size of the project the 450 seat restaurant. The
traffic problems and parking problems that may adversaly
effect the community. Raising the height of the site by three
fee and affecting the surrounding property especially during
the flooding period. WE feel that we have enough problems
Planning Board Page 2 11/9/87
now, but if they raise that another three feet they will
create more of a problem. We are a little concerned about
exceeding the NY State Grant boundary. The reverse osmosis
water system and by products and .the other problems that
may be entailed with that. The location of the sewage treatment
system as well. as the potential noise and light pollution. .
Tonight, Pat Calahan, who is also on our committee is here
and he can comment with respect to more of the technical
aspects of these problems . However, before Pat, I think
Linda Fletcher who is president of the New Suffolk Civic
Association has a few words.
Linda Fletcher: Yes , my name is Linda Fletcher and I reside
in New Suffolk and I ' am president of the New Suffolk Civic
Association. I concur with the remarks made by Jack who -
is a member of the monitering committee of the New Suffolk
Civic Association. I would also like to add the following
comments. In my' study of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law, I learned that the main purpose of any
Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to investigate and
then mitigate. When I compared these principals to the DEIS
presentation of the Marina Bay Club, I find that the mitigation
section of the document is inadequate. In my opinion, this
inadequacy is caused by failure to thouroughly investigate
possible problems in the preceeding sections. Particularly
in regard to traffic, parking and scraping. of the grade level,
and the water supply and sewage treatment. In none of these
areas . have a worst case scenerio presented, thus reliving
the applicant of any reason to mitigate. I would ask you
to request a worst case scenerio for the areas and for the
mitigating measures. Lastely, in .the .alternative section
of the document there is no presentation of an alternative
based upon reduced size and scope. In my. opinion these alternative,
this alternative should be given much consideration. Members
of the New Sufolk Civic Association trust that- you- will give
your best- efforts in the review of this proposal. Thank
you.
Pat Calahan: Im .:Pat Calahan of New Suffolk. Over the
past, actually three years, Mr. Carr has made an effort to
keep the community very posted on his activities . and
plans. We had an opportunity to sit down with him some time
ago, gave him some preliminary comments and then more recently
over the past month we have sat with him and attended our
most recent Civic Association and most comments I would say
are on the way to resolution. And, as Jack Fisher pointed
out there are still some open issues. I would however like
to bring out the items we have discussed to give you a sense
of where we are with him. And, maybe add a little more perspective
and dimension to our involvements ,on the report. One of
our initial concerns in reading -the DEIS was the magnitude
of the materials to be removed. I think it talked,_.about 27, 000
cubic yards for the dredging and we weren' t sure if that
was dredging or mining. We explored that further with .Mr.
Carr' s. engineers who explained to us in terms of the grading
Planning Board Page 3 11/9/87
plan. The grading and the quantity was reduced to about
18, 000 yards after their refinement. But it still left us
concern with respect raising the site. The site, which is
currently at elevation 5 and 6 would be going up to elevation
8 and 9 and higher depending upon other needs . So., that
continues an area of concern with us. It is a fairly large
area of 312 acres . to be raised that amount, visually, we thought
it would have impact, also from the point of view of flooding.
A few other details, not details, comments. We talked with
Mr. Carr concerning the boat'. storage building and the fact
of would it be used for on-call .use of boats. Which would,
of course, impact on the traffic generation. I believe the
folks who did the traffic study had indicated -no-generation
due to the boat storage facility. Mr. Carr. reaffirmed that
with us that it is not going to be an on call facility and.
with respect to that building comment that came up as a result
our Civic Association meetins was that if some effort could
be made to move the building further inside the property ,
too, we would appreciate that, you take a look at it. I realize,
it probably fits the footprint of the earlier two buildings
that were there, but if possible it would be a very positive
thing to do. With respect to water supply and proposed waste
system, we have brought to Mr. Carr' s attention the fact
that we thought that the RO system that he is proposing is
probably going .to �be a large cost to him and probably a lot
of headaches as he goes along with that .type of system. And,
suggested that he contact or perhaps review .further some
of the suggestions made by the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services on the earlier condo proposals because
we believe they either directly or alluded to going offl..site.
Now, that may sound like an unusual comment to receive from a
Civic Group usually, in essence, we normally have that other
position. However, we see in that case, there will be a
balance interms of meeting his needs and. perhaps meeting
the needs of the community since virtually all the property
on First Street and maybe a portion of Second Street are
in the flood zone and many, many people have brackish water
so we will ask Mr. Carr if he will look at going off site
in conjuncition with the County Health Services to see if
in fact that will be feasible and if in fact there could
be potable water supply made available to others in the community
who might need it. Regarding the wastewater systems and
again that relates to the surface elevations which was proposed,
the property was proposed to be raised to we understand that
a package treatment plant is recommended by the Health Department,
Department of Health Services and of course, attended
that the problem is in order to get sufficient areas for
the leaching fields. We have a concern there, I think it
may be a mixed blessing, but we are concerned with dealing
with a high water table, tidal influence, I am personally
familiar with the fact of the existence of a meadow matter
of bog a few feet from the surface. The fact that it had
been prior landfilled. Another words, we are concerned with
the.•adequaey. of even developing a system for sufficient perculation.
Perhaps, some alternative approaches could be looked at.
Dependent with that waste system would be a building to house
Planing Board Page 4 11/9/87
the treatment plant. We were concerned with- its proximity
to First Street and appreciate his immediately recognizing
that as a problem. He indicated to us that -he would be looking
at that to see if it could be moved further on the site,
perhaps integrated with his building for boat storage. In
other words, .get away from the street recognizing that notwithstanding
the purported high technilogy that will be employed in the
system that there can be problems. He also assured that he
would be putting emergency_ generators should there be power
failures, obviously' the: problems that that would cause. We
talked, Jack mentioned in passing, regarding noise and lights.
We think the development is kind a challenge to his architects
and designers to recognize our sensativity and our needs.
I personally live, rather close and many other of us do. New
Suffolk is virtually at night, there is no light •and :no
noise. So the thresholds are very low. So we again appreciate
his giving alot of consideration to that in design, keeping
the lights very subdued and to the maximum .extent possible
insulating the mechanical systems. Just two other points
with respect to the overall site and its extent. The outer
easterly boundary of the site would be roughly, like twice,
as far to the east as what it is today, so you measure from
the high water mark. We are uncertain as to what his rights
are to these lands and as this whole process would progress
which we could prove to him as a result of that, we would
look forward to having similar restrictive covenants as what
was placed in the original grant in order to insure that the
next generation should they be faced with the same generation
that they would have assurance that the property remain in
the constant use. Lastly, I would just like to comment on
we have cooperation we had recommendation that perhaps some
folks from the community could work with him and his architects
and other people from the historic point of view. We kind
of felt that there was not enough attention as could be given
to that . But, he was most agreeable to do that. I think
that would be all the comments I have and I. 'do hope that
other folks and Mr. Carr would continue to offer. their comments
this evening. Thank you.
John Hart: Mr. Chairman, I am John Hart of Pelletreau and
Pelletreau of Patchogue. We are the attorneys for Mr. Carr.
What I would like to indicate to is what has already been.
indicated by Mr. Fisher; Ms. Fletcher and Mr. Calahan and
that s ' that there has been a real spirit of cooperation
here between Mr. Carr and the members of the community
And, we are amenable to and continue to be amenable to the
requests and issues of the community and will continue to
work with them. There has been a spirit of cooperation and
we� hope that this spirit will continue.
i
I
Planning Board Page 5 11/9/87
Tom Lowry: My name is Tom Lowry, I live in New Suffolk. ,
I am going to key my comments to the DEIS pages for your
convenience. Chapter One, page one, Mr. Carr, in his DEIS
claims to own six acres more or less . That seems to indicate
that there is no question in his mind concerning the validity
of the Town or the State Grants. The late Town Attorney
was uncertain as to the validity of the Town Grant and I
have a letter from the NY State Department of State saying
that the validity of that grant as far as he is concerned
also is in question. I would say, also that on page A15
of .the DEIS and this is a quote " there-. is -apparent appropriation
of public bottom for private use" . I guess that is Mr. Emlita' s
comment; it is not attributed, but I believe that to be the
case. Chapter One, page two, the number -of slips proposed
in phase two is given as 137. That seems to me to be very
high and I would be more than happy„ if Mr. Carr would just
be pleased with the number of slips that he is asking for
in phase one which is , I think, 84. Chapter One, page six,
one of the three access'-points to the project is directly
North of the Town property at that point, by that I mean
the launching ramp. It seems to me that an exit from the
project at that point, - coming out almost next to the launching
ramp, which is right next to the entrance and exit to the public
parking lot for the beach means that there will be a hell
of alot of traffic at the. corner of Jackson and First and
I would like to see some attention paid to redesigning that
part of it. Chapter One, page seven, says that the choice
of type of sewage is left open. I can understand thereason
for that I don' t think that anything ought to be considered
as approved in any final way until a final choice of the
type of plant is made. Chapter One, page eight, there is
a mention of a minimal increase in traffic, that is a quote.
Whereas on pages nine and ten of that Chapter One the figures
are sited that amount to saying that really the increase
in traffic is something on the order of 400% . That doesn' t
seem to me to be minimal. Page A4, there is no mention of
the DEIS of the Trustees ' question of commercial fisherman
using the facility. I would like to raise the question of
the possiblity if perhaps the bayman might get a preferential
rate on the use of the facility. Page A15 ,. I am sorry, I
am wrong on that. Page Al2, the developer mentioned the
removal of 150 truckloads of topsoil from the site. I would
like to' think that he would consider, if possible, that with
a little informal survey be made of New Suffolk' s own needs
perhaps some of those 150 truckloads might be well used in
the hamlet itself. Thank you.
Ronnie Wacker: My name is Ronnie Wacker and I represent
the North Fork Environmental Council. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to present our views on the Draft Environmental
IMpact Statement.. of the proposed Marina Bay Club in New Suffolk.
There can certainly be no argument that the present marina
facility in New Suffolk can be improved. We have a few concerns ,
however, that the scale proposed may overwhelm this tiny
Planning Board Page 6 11/9/87
fishing village. When the applicant states that the building
height will be 28 ' will this be 28 ' above sea level or 28 '
added to the 10 ' elevation at first floor level proposed
in compliance with flood plain regulations. If the latter,
than residents who chose their homes for the superb view
of the Bay there will face instead a 38 ' obstruction over
500 ' long. And, I wonder whether any thought has been given
to what this three and a half story wall will look like from
the water. We would like to see more analysis of the traffic
impact on Saturday mornings between 8 and 10 when boatmen are
heading to their boats and other people are heading out to
yardsales or on errands. The same problem, if there is one,
can be expected to arrise on Sunday, when people are going .
to church. Also, in the evening on Sunday, you have boatmen
returning from the sail, people going out to dinner or coming
home from the beach or starting a long drive back to the
city. Weekend traffic problems, we feel, are not realistically
addressed. The weekend traffic survey was limited to one
Saturday this summer between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. We feel
this deserves more extensive study. How effective will the
39 leaching pools be in the recharge of stormwater into the
ground. Have soil perculation tests be made to establish
this. The applicant states that when storms produce more
than '2" of water per hour the excess runoff will be directed
into the Bay. Now, road runoff has been determined to be
the single most important contributor to pollution of our
creeks and bays. This will bring additional nutrients into
a Bay which is already suffering the effects of excessive
nutrients which has -experienced an algea bloom which has
killed off the scallop crop for the last three years . Also,
the reverse osmosis will pipe rejected water to an outfall
nozzle 500 ' inthe bay, the DEIS says the increased salinity
will have no impact on the Bay. The shell fish and fin fish
are very sensative to 'even a slight change in water conditions.
This deserves. further study, in our opinion. In considering
reverse osmosis, we would also like to be assured that the
operators will be highly trained in this innovative system.
Has it been used, before in Peconic Bay waters: And, what
has its performance been. In the matter of water pollution,
what will be the effect of treatment of bulkhead timber with
20 pounds of creaso of 2. 5 pounds of preservative salt per
cubic foot. Our last concern might be seen as biting-,;the
hand of a benefactor. The applicant suggests that the marina
complex:, after construction has been completed, will bring
an average of 45 permanant jobs in phase one and as many
as 65 - 70 jobs in phase two. This may normally be considered
a boom to the area, but have you tried to hire people for
non-skilled jobs recently. Other than boat- mechanic, chef,
engineers, the bulk of these jobs waiters, cleaners, maintenance
workers will be filled by people without specific training.
There isn' t a supermarket, restaurant, or vineyard that isn' t
experiencing a problem with personal now. To some it would
seem that the area would welcome an expanded marina project,
but worries about being crushed to death in the embrace
commercial octopus. Certainly, the project. needs a more
Planning Board Page 7 11/9/87
researched Environmental Impact Statement.
Joan Robbins: My name is Joan Robbins, my husband, and I
live in New Suffolk, our home is on the northeast corner
of Third and Main Street. We would like to add our voices
to the concerns that have already expressed. One of our
major concerns is of course the fresh water supply. That
our supply not be diminished either in quantity or quality
either by the water supply system of Marina Bay Club or by
the waste disposal system, whatever choice is made in that
area. Another one of our major concerns is the quality of
the bay .water, whatever quality is left. That that not be
diminished by this project and thirdly, the traffic. Even
now, with-the marina operating in a very limited way, the.
Galley Ho in its present capacity King Street is not Main
Street. There are individual drivers now who leave the vicinity of
the , Galley Ho and seem to be inclined to reach 90 miles
an hour' by the time they get to the Fifth Street light. Which
is five very short blocks . With an expansion of this size,
I think at the very least, the Town will be hearing from
a lot more of us a lot more frequently. The size is unimaginable,.
but we hope some accomodation can be made in that regard.
We hope to be able to get out of our driveway which entrances
and exits on Main Street. And; we hope that New Suffolk
remains New Suffolk.
Steve Latson:. My name is Steve Latson .and I .am secretary
of the bayman'. s association. One of the things we are opposed
to in _this4.project is that it seems that it is going to confiscate
three acres of State 'bay bottom. If you figure out the numbers
it comes out to a little over three acres. This area also
is always a ,prime scallop area. Beyond that the dredging
of 27, 000 cubic yards is stated to be not significant but
we do consider this significant. If you went into one of
our local creeks and started dredging a channel you could
dredge a channel 500 by 50 by 3 feet deep, that is quite
a channel. The other question is suitability of the heavy
metals for fill . that this spoil is supposed to go for. When
you read the heavy metal numbers you really have to question,
they are pretty high, we think and we asked a consultant
and he thought they were quite questionable. So, if you
use it as fill, you are going to be jeopardizing the water
table and also you are going to be saturating that ground
with these metals, copper, arsenic, mercury, tin and they
go on and on. The other thing is when you are dredging,
you will be creating silt in the water and of course this
will go out into the other parts of the Bay.. and this is not
a good feature also. Another question is the 39 leaching
pools. Gradually, if you have 85% coverage of the area and
you have these enormous parking .area, it seems that you will
have an inordinate amount of hydrocarbon pollutant accumulating
in the leaching pool area. In conjunction with the 17 , 000
gallons of treated .wastewater, it- seems -like this area is
going to be taking a really heavy dose of water, especially
if you have some heavy rains. And, if the calculated perculation
of half a foot to two feet, if it is !.only half a foot, I
can really see some serious backing up of water in this area.
Planning Board Page 8 11/9/ 87
If we have a wet season. As far as underground fuel storage
goes , Port of .-Egypt and the Greenport Shipyard have just
recently installed above ground diked fuel tanks. I have
a feeling you are probably not :allowed in next' to a marine
area to put underground tanks because if you do have a breach
. in the tanks, you will never known it until it is too late.
The idea obviously is to contain it above ground and clean
it up before it gets into the marine habitat. As far .as
the reverse osmosis goes, roughly if you use the system to
its full capacity you will be pumping 1. 4 times the normal
base salinity back:,into the Bay, you will be,- pumping about
100 , 000 gallons a day and it comes out to somewhere about
37 million gallons a year. This is areal question mark,
how fast does it disperse etc. and so forth. I don' t think
the report has adequately covered how fast it disperses.
But, increased salinity basically increases , will bring an
increase in .preditors. If you go through the Peconic System,
you get to Gardiner' s Bay, the preditors jump up enormously
because the salinity jumps enormously. Quite possiblity
due. to the lack of flushing in the Peconics you may end
up haveing excess salt in the Cutchogue Harbor area which
is part of the critical habitat area hopefully. The last
thing that I want to say, is as far as their citing 44 NY
State Coastal Zone Management Policies, they did cite 7 of
them, I can cite 7 of them which would probably go against
what they are saying. The real intent of these 44 policies
and I ' ll read it briefly: It is the intention of the legislature
that ,the preservation, enhancement and utilization of natural
and manmade resources of the State' unique coastal area
take place in a coordinated and comprehensive manner to._insure
the proper balance of natural resources to accomodate the
needs of population growth and economic development. Accordingly
it is the intention of this part of achieve a balance between
economic development and preservation that will permit the
beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing. the
loss of living marine resources to the water and wildlife,
dimunition of - open spaces or public access to waterfront,
shoreline erosion, impairment of scenic beauty or permanent
adverse changes to ecological systems. I .-think finally,
what we feel is that the size and scope of this marina is
way beyond something that won' t permanently adverse, make
adverse changes to the -ecological system. Thank you.
Bill Yetter: My name is Bill Yetter. I am a member of the
New Suffolk Civic Association and I have my business in North
Fork Shipyard which will be the Marina Bay Club. I am a
yacht broker, I have been a yacht broker for 15 years, member
of the association of marina industries and am familiar with
and have visited everyother marina on Peconic Bay, many of
them in Conecticut, Rhode Island, and up as far, as Newport.
I_ have boated and traveled as a boatman. Thinking about
the size of this project; I am thinking recently that, I
can' t.-recall the name, but Mr. Tooker has a marina up in
Riverhead, which exits ..right into the Town of Riverhead, ,
Planning Board Page 9 11/9/87
with well over 100 slips. Larry' s Lighthouse Marina a little
further East, has 170 slips in Aquebogue and 120 in South
Jamesport :with a total of 270. Coming along further I think
that Brewer' s who used to be Pierce has grown by quite some
numbers coming out further and further into Sterling Harbor.
Corrigan' s in Hampton Bays has 120 some odd slips , they have
just enlarged, on .the canal. Star Marina has 127 on. Lake
Montauk coming out in to the lake. And,. as far as I am concerned
the size of this marina coming out into the Bay, not on creeks
or canals or inland waters poses-. no hazards to navigation.
And as far as the shell life, I really can' t say, but it
seems to be no more crucial there than in the creeks and
inland waters of this part of the Bay and area. Thank you.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, are there any. ,other comments .
Mr. John Hart: Mr. Orlowski, and members of the Board.
I think that basically there is no dispute between Mr. Carr
and the members of the community. There is an economic engine
that drives us and there is a certain size that will make
it work. And, there is an identity of interest between the
community and Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr wants to make it work,
the community wants to make it work. We are interested in
preserving the water supply and we are willing to talk to
the community about that and about moving the source of water
supply to the point that will use a reverse osmosis system
to a point at some other .location. We. have a real<:.identity
of interest. There is an economic benefit that will accrue
to the community. There is an economic "benefit that will
work for both parties. There will be an increase in jobs,
and I think that working together we can have something that
New Suffolk and the Town of Southold will be proud of and
so far we have had a dialoge, I think, that has been effective.
We hope to continue .this dialogue and working together I
think we can make it work.
Mr. Orlowski: Any other comments.
Patsy Rogers: My name is Patsey Rogers., I live in New Suffolk and
teach in the school there. I would, I 've heard alot of talk
in New Suffolk in the last few days about ,we must never be
confrontational and how we-must all cooperate and -..so on.
And, I would only like to ,say that not all of use agree that
this is a good project for New Sufolk. Not just because
of the size, but at all. And, .there are some people who strongly
disagree. I feel that the committee has worked very hard
to be fair and no confrontational and so on and that is marvelous
but I don' t think it is right to represent that all people
in New Suffolk approve of this project and think it is a
good idea, I am one who does not.
Mr. Orlowski: Thank you any other comments? Hearing none.
Any questions from the Board? Mr. Mullen?
Mr. Mullen: I just have a comment. I would like to see
the applicant and the Civic .Association and the Environmental
Planning Board Page 10 11/9/87
Council and any one else get together and sit down and clarify
some of these problems such as the parking,. the lights, the
water , the traffic and so:.on..:. It appears to me that you
people want to work together and if you sit down and come
up with some of these answers it is going to make it much
clearer and beneficial to everybody concerned, in the future.
And, that frankly, is what I am most concerned with, the
future.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, Mr. Latham,
Mr. Latham: I would echo Bill ' s statement that we can all
work together on this.
Mr. Orlwoski: Okay, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: I have a question. There was a comment made early
on about a restaurant for 450 . Is that a number that we
heard. Because I don' t see that anywhere on the plan and
I would like a clarificiation on that.
Mr. Hart: That is the second phase, Mr. Ward. And, I think
that Mr. Carr has already agreed to diminish in size.
Mr. Ward: What would that be diminished to?
Mr. Hart: It would be reduced by 150.
Mr. Ward: For .a total of 300.
Mr. Hart: Yes., but I mean that is using outside in:.the summer
time to increase it to that amount.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards: No, just that I think the points brought up
will be well taken by this Board.
Mr. Orlowski: I think there were some very good comments
made here tonight. You have until November 19 to get any
comments to the Board to be,- reviewed. Dave Emilita has been
reviewing this DEIS and his comments will -be forthcoming.
And, I can tell you that we-will take everything into consideration.
Thank you for coming down and good night. I will declare
this hearing closed.
Planning Board Page 11 11/9/87
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. James Gray has scheduled an appointment
to discuss teh pending change of zone before the Town Board
for his property at County Route 48, Cutchogue, from AIR
to C.
Mr. Mullen: Mr. Chairman, I must refrain from participating
in this application because I am involved with.:the- applicant.
Mr. Orlowski: Mr. Gray, if you would like to come forward,
the Board is looking for a brief explanation of your intended
use and future use for this property and the reason; your
reasons for applying for the change.
Mr. Orlowski: Do you have any particular use intended for
this property at this time.
Mr. Gray: Yes, I will put industrial buildngs on it for
contractor' s that have to move out of their houses and need
small shops. I intend to put one large multiple type building,
1500 to 2000 square feet.
Mr. Orlowski: Could you please use the microphone because
there are people back there who would like to hear you.
Mr. Gray: I am sorry. Can you:,hear me know? My name is
Jim Gray, I live in Cutchogue. This property we intend to
develop and put a building up that will be a multiple type
building and it will be for the purpose of. individual type
contractors.;.-.such as electricans, plumbers, carpenters , landscapers
and lawnmower repair men. Any type of business that has to
have a shop but cannot operate out of his house anymore.
We are going to do a nice job on the buildings, we haven' t,-,
designed the buildings yet, but they will meet all the specifications,
I am sure.
Mr. Orlowski Okay, any questions from the Board? Mr.
Latham?
Mr. Latham: This is next door to the one we just acted on.
Junge.
Mr. Orlowski: The use would go along with°;.the'.,LIO which was
recommended on the proposed Master Plan.
Mr. Ward: How many acres for 'this new zone?
Mr. Orlowski: It was one acre on LT.'and LIO wasi.three acres.
It was recommended for LI which was one acre.
Mr. Latham: It is going to be kind of tight isn' t it?
Mr. Ward: We are proposing that this use go for commercial
and it would seem appropriate that we direct the same response
to the Zonign Board of Appeals: My only concern that I have
is that as this develops with the small individual lots,
Planning Board Page 12 11/9/87
each lot is going to have a separate driveway onto County
Route 48, so that is all. I am having concern over the continuationof
having , 40 or 50 driveways with the use rather than our original
thought that it would be larger spaces and there would be
a larger common road system to the area.
Mr. Orlowski: I think at the time we address the site plan
the comments might be leading towards that with one ingress
and egress onto County Route 48, but that would be at a latter
point in time. The only other point I see is even if it
would be a C zone, it would be non-conforming because it
is undersized so that would probably send you back to the
ZBA. But, I don' t have any problem with it since it is
consistent with the proposed Master Plan that we worked on
for the last five years. And, which I think is a pretty
good plan, so I have no problem with that. Knowing what
the use will be.
Mr. Gray: In response to :Mr. Ward' s question on the curb
, cut, the County will not give us a curb cut for each individual
parcel, we will have to inside driveways run completely from
the first parcel which is Mr. Junges, past my parcel to the
other one to Cox Lane, so there 'may be only two curb cuts.
It must be 1000 ' feet between so about every 400 ' you will
have a curb cut. I went through it, they made me do that
on the South by Horton' s and onthe North Road there.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we assumed that was what they were going
to do and we just wanted to let you know.
Mr. Gray: No question about it.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, other than that, I have no problem and
I ' ll take a motion to send a recommendation to the Town Board.
On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by .Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board recommend
to the Town Board that the change of zone request for Mr.
James Gray located at- Cutchogue be approved since it is in
conformance with the Master Plan and proposed Zoning Map.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Abstained: Mullen
On a motion made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the
minutes of the regular meeting of Monday, October 19 , 1987 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Planning Board Pag 15 11/9/87
Mr. Raynor: The understanding that the applicant has received
with regard to this, and I have had discussions with Ms.. . Scopa.z
with regard, to this and if you put a condition for approval
that it will be developed as a major it is going to be perceived
that it should be developed as a major. That is not their intention
or their wish.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, let me put it this way, the rules that you
will be conforming to will' be of major subdivision specifications.
If it is up to this Board we will let you know upfront that we want
it.
Mr. Raynor: What would be, explain to me what the differential
would be, maybe I am a little thick tonight; I don' t know.
Mr. Orlowski: In case you came back for three lots , we will ask
for the major subdivision road, period.
Mr. Raynor: You have that in your specifications anyhow.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we are going to leave that in the approval too,
I am sure.
Mr Raynor: But, by putting it in the approval what I mean is
the applicant perceives it that if somebody buys it, they must develop
it to the full potential.
Mr. Orlowski: Not at all.
Mr. Raynor: Well, will you stipulate that so the applicant is
aware of what the Board is meaning.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I think you are familiar with the problems
we have had in the past in leaving that out has left an open door
to people thinking .that four lots automatically gives them another
subdivision.
Mr. Raynor: There '.is no problems with saying that the development
of the remaining parcel would be as per Town specifications. It
is up to the Board whatever specifications they want to place on
it. But if you put major subdivision specifications on it, they
are going to perceive it that it has to be built on the maximum.
Mr. Orlowski: I see where you are coming from and. we will clarify
that.
Mr. Raynor: You understand their question. Their question
is if we encumber the property to the effect that if the
Board resolution of approval is that it must be a major,
if anybody buys this, they have to develope it in four lots.
We don' t want that.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, I think you have been here alot many more years
than I have and you have known that we have done that alot.
Mr. Raynor: You. are more pleasant than I am.
Mr. Orlowski: Sure I am sure you can explain it to your client.
Planning Board Page 14 11/9/87
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I think the only thing we would like to see
the rest of it on the map itself as Lot No. 4.
Mr. Raynor: Lot 4 okay. We are also in the process, the County
doesn' t have all the records with regard to the current status of
the property, we are revamping those so we will-. give them the
entire. . . what it was carved out of estaet of 28 acres. And, I
will see that the Board gets a copy.,of those also.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I think on Lot No. 4, as you know we have done
inthe past is asked that any further subdivision be a major subdivision.
The County may look at it as a major now, I am not sure.
Mr. Ward: Are there prior subdivisions?
Mr. Orlowski: Prior. set off.
Mr. Raynor: There is a set off to the east that was done inthe
70 ' s. With regard to your comment, is it a comment or is it going
placed on as part of the resolution.
Mr. Orlowski: It will be part of the approval.
Mr. Raynor: The clients have problems with that because, let me
ask you this, if it is going to be made, if a prospective purchaser
of the 9 acres want to put one home on it are you going to force
him to build town spec roads.
Mr. Orlowski: Not, with just one lot.
Mr. Raynor: Well, than I don' t understand part of the resolution.
Or, rather the conditions of the resolution.
Mr. Orlowski: If he is going to subdivide that lot 4.
Mr. Raynor: The applicant is not going to-subdivide that lot 4.
Mr. Orlowski: No, but if lot 4 is ever subdivided, we—would like
that covenant that it will be done as a major. It' s going to be
anyway.
Mr. Raynor: When you say done as a major, that is what I don' t
understand. Are you saying that the remaining nine acres must
yield "x" number of lots.
Mr. Orlowski: No, it can yield two, lots, it can yield one forever.
But, the County will look at it as a major subdivision, road specs
now, for a major or minor are the same. . Widthi:may be adjusted
down to 22 by approval by the Board. We are letting the applicant
know and telling him that if there is going to be a subdivision
of that 9 acres and most likely the only time a road would be
used if it is going to get past two more lots , if you go to three
lots you are going to have to get access. And, one lot you are
not going to be buildig a road to the house.
Planning Board Page 13 11/9/87
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning. Board set Monday,
November 23 , 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. at the Southold. Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold as the time and place for the-next
regular Board meeting.
Vote of the Board; Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
John Sepenoski: (SCTM # 1000-69-4-9)
Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have John Sepenoski Board to review
the resolution of. the ,Suffolk County Commission and the correspondence
from, the attorey for the applicant requesting the Planning
Board override the County. Well, the County,. after due study
and deliberation resolved to disapprove-because it will create
a landlocked parcel and the ususal, standard comments. One
way to eliminate that or answer these comments is to do it
with a flag lot instead of putting the road to one lot which
appears will go nowhere from there becuase there is a railroad
track. We went through this with the County before and we
have basically been opposed to it, but at times we find it
is a lot easier to go along with :a- flag lot. Would the Board
like to propose this to the applicant.
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it
was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board request that
the set off survey for John Sepenoski be amended to reflect
a flag_ lot rather than a right-of-way . in order to comply
with the County Planning Commission. This proposal is located
at Southold, SCM # 1000-69-4-9 .
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Frank Sawicki
SCTM # 1000-51-6-3 . 1
Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Walter and Frank Sawicki. Board to
take action on the sketch map for 3 lots on 12. 1 acres located at
Southold. Mr. Raynor, are we creating three lots here or is it
four lots?
Mr. Raynor (agent for the applicant) : I would presume that it would
be three lots, the last lot remainig you could declare either a
fourth lot or a second section. However, it is the intent 'of the
applicant not to develop the remainder of the property: I would
imagine in the future, the applicant and his wife are elderly, so
it could be put on the market. But there is no intent whatsoever
to develop the remaining 9 acres.
Planning Board Page 16 11/9/87
Mr. Raynor: I will try, thank you gentlemen.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, we will word it in a little different way to
help you out.
Mr. Raynor: Thankyou.
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham; it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the sketch
map.. for the minor subdivision. of ._.Frank Sawicki for 4
lots on 12. 1 acres located at Sound View Avenue and North Road,
Southold, survey to be amended to include all 12. 1 acres.
SCTM # 1000- 51-6-3 . 1.
Vote of the Board; Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
On a motion made by Mr. .Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the
lot line change, for Walter and Marilyn:;Gatz located at Mattituck,
survey dated June 25 , 1987. SCTM # 1000-121-1-4. 1.
Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, latham, Ward, Edwards
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize the
Chairman to endorse the lot line change for Code and Nelson
located"at Southold, SCTM. # 1000-76-2, 3 , and 4.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Charles Acres. Board to grant an
extension on the filing of the final maps of this major subdivision
located at Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM # 1000786-1-10. 3. What is
the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Latham: How long of an extension.
Mr. Orlowski: It does not state, but you can put that in
the resolution. They are having trouble with the County, the
applicant did call me and they are dealing with test wells and
eveything for the water so .
On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
Planning Board Page 17 11/9/87
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board grant a 90-day
extension for filing the final ma s for the major subdivision,- of
Charles Acres located at Wells Road, Peconic, sCTM # 1000-86-1-10. 3 .
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
ON a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold''Town Planning Board set Monday, November
23 , 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall as the time and
place for the public,:hearing .on!ithe ':question of approval of the
preliminary maps for this major subdivision located at Southold,
for. .Henry';Arbeen'y . . SCTM # 1000-59-74!31.
Vote of ,the.:Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town .Planning Board set Monday, November
23 , 1987 at 7: 45 p.m. at-�:.the Southold Town. Hall, as the time and
place for-.-the public hearing .on the question of approval of the
minor subdivision.-,. for Golf View Estates located at East Marion, SCTM
#1000-35-2-p/ol6.
Vote of the Board; Ayes : Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
On a motion made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept. the
engineers report for the,_final inspection on the access road
forothe:,minor subdivision of MacKenzie, Peluso, Ram Realty, etal.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski,Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Mr. Latham: The Building Department had a 'question before, that
is only the road report.
Mr. Lessard: You are telling me known that 'you have accepted a
road in the middle of a one lot subdivision. Is that correct.
Mr. Latham: Yes.
Mr.. . Orlowski: Just one lot.
Mr. Lessard: Okay, we are looking at one lot that is what the
certificate of occupancy will read at the moment if it ever
gets to that point.
Mr. Orlowski: Right.
Mr. Latham:: ; The road originally went up the east/west property
Planning Board Page 18 11/9/87
line but because of a proposed east/west road which was knocked out
so the road only goes•.a few feet short-: .
Mr. Orlowski: It is. still' one •lot -now Vic:
Mr. latham: Is that okay for us to do that?
Mr. Orlowski: Yes , it is only one lot, there are no more building
permits�..to be issued there, unless the subdivision is approved.
Mr. Lessard: That is what I wanted to- make clear, we are looking
at a one lot subdivision at the moment.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, I wouldl. .watch the setbacks though.
Mr. Lessard: I am watching the set backs.
Hillcrest Estates Section I
(SCTM # 1000-13-•2-1, 3; 8.
Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Hillcrest Estates. In Hillcrest,
we have another inspection report. The inspection disclosed that
the grading and shoulder area behind the curb has not been completed
to date but the curbing, drainage and roadway paving has been
completed as per the specifications and we recommend acceptance of
this portion. I believe the applicant is asking if he can get
building permits in this subdivision since the roads are complete,
the only thing left is the seeding. The question to the Board is,
do you want to recommend to the Building Department that rye give
out the building permits as he finishes out the seeding. ;
Mr. Ward: Did anybody from the Board look at this?
Mr. Mullen: Yes, we did this morning.
Mr. Edwards.: He won' t be able to do any seeding this time of year.
Mr_ . 11 tham: The seeding is not all of it, there were alot ,of things
not completed.
Mr. Mullen: I don' t understand why we accept portions of a subdivision
work. For, example this:-one, the three of us went out this morning.
The drainage is not to grade, in other words, if we feel that there
is going to be another level of road way put down the drain is at
least 2 sometimes 3" above the paving. And, the paving is faulty
in many areas if they are .not ..going to put it down, noway could
we ever accept that road. There was one pplace in particular where
it was 4-of 5 inches ddep where there was nothing at all but sand.
Mr. Ward: Why don' t we show that in our memorandum.
Mr. Orlowski.: Valerie, you had some comments here also too from
your inspection. Do you want me to go over them.
Ms:. Scopaz : Yes .
Planning Board Page 19 11/9/87
Mr. Orlwoski: Valerie also noted that there was only one leaching
pool where four were required. Several catch basins were above grade:
9, 10 , 11, 12, 13:; 14 , 15. Grading and seeding of the land within
and around the drainage area have not been completed in accordance
to the plani. The fill within the park area should be graded and
seeded. The -fire well has not been put in. Eighty street
trees have not been installed and street signs are not in place.
Mr. Ward: Therefore.
Mr. Orlowski: Therefore, it is not complete. The applicant said
that since the road is done, those other things should be done later-.-
What is the Board' s pleasure?
Mr. Lessard: I don' t want to comment pro or con, but I had a problem
today on Harbor Lights 4 that was developed in the last 70 ' s. The
drainage was never finished. The lots were dumped off to individuals.
The developer really don' t give a fiddler' s damn anymore. I can
not release any building permits on this since it has not been
accpted and I think I agree with Mr. Mullen, a partial .is nonsense,
really.
Mr. Orlowski: I think the Board' s policy is finish it and then get
. your building permits. Because we are getting stuck too many times
too often,and I believe this is another one of his subdivisions
where you are having the problem.
Mr. Lessard: It is.
Mr. Mullen: Finish the whole thing.
Mr. Latham: The base coat, I don' t know .how thick it is supposed
to be but the base blacktop coat looked awfully thin.
Mr. Lessard: Well, the engineer should check the base, because if
the base isn' t proper; the rest of it will never stay there.
That is an engineering aspect.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, the engineer says the j.ob is not '-finished and
Ic'_don' t think the board is in any position to recommend any type
of approval for a building permit at this point in time, until the
job is finished.
Mr. Ward: I think our leter to him ought to itemize those other
items.
Mr. Orlowski: Yes , from Mr. Latham and Mr. Mullen and Ms. Scopaz ' s
report which our engineer must have missed.
* * * * * * * * * *
Planning Board Page 20t. 11/9/87
Samuel and Eliza Kopper
SCTM # 1000-86-4-1 .2
Mr. Orlowski; Next, we have Samuel Kopper.
Mr. Mullen; Mr. Chairman, I have to abstain because my daugher is
involved with the applicant under contract.
Mr. Orlowski: We have a report, the construction .ha"s-:,been completed
as required and it is finished and recommend acceptance. This one
is a finished job. You can authorize me to sign the maps but the
covenants have not been filed yet, as soon as they are, I will do
so, it you want to make. a motion.
On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded by Mr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board authorize-:-.the. Chairman
to endorse the minor subdivision map for Samuel K.C. and Eliza Kopper
subject to receipt of the covenants and restrictions signed and filed
with'.-the Suffolk County Clerk' s Office.
Vote of the Board: Ayes : Orlowski,Latham, Ward, Edwards
Abstained: Mullen
On a motion made by Mr. Latham, seconded byMr. Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the enginners
report with regard to the final inspectionon the access road within
the minor subdivision for Samuel K. C. Kopper and Eliza Kopper located
at Peconic. SCTM # 1000-86-4-1. 2
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Orlowski, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Abstained: Mullen
Laurel Lake' Way:
Mr. Orlowski: Laurel Lake Way, Board to accept the engineers report
on the final inspection of the access raod, located at Laurel.
Inspection was conducted�tby Mr. Dean and Mr. Heffernan. In our letter
of August we indicated the first 150 ' . inear feet of Sound avenue
be reconstructed to obtain. .an acceptable right-of-way, and surface.
We find the corrections outlined in this report have been made and
recommend acceptance.
Mr. Scopaz : Has anybody on the Board looked at it.
Mr. Orlowski: I have not looked<'at. That is an existing right-ofway
that was pretty well brought up to snuff six months ago wasn' t it
Victor.
Planning Board Page 21 11/9/87
Mr. Lessard: That was the one when we came out, that was the one
we came down when we went to look at Adam and we came around and
we came out, that was what we were talking about. I think that
probably, and again maybe I am over reacting we should accept the
condition of the road that the road where..it is. If that makes sense.
Accepting the condition of the road itself and not where ,:the placement
of the road is.
Mr. Orlowski: We do_:know,.--that they do have access over this road?
Mr. Lessard: Yes.
Mr. Orlowski: For a fact it is the adjoining parcel which does not
have access over this road which is in litigation. Which, would like
to get to the lot across the street but can' t. So, I am sure this
will make everybody happy on the other side of the road but won' t
do anything for the issuance of a building;%:permit because they can' t
use that road. Am I right?
Mr. Lessard: Yes , everything to the East. I think that probably
and again it is only a suggestion thati. when we accept something like
this it should be a clause put in there to be continually maintained
as such from the point of acceptance because we have a tendancy to
let it go to hell the minute we get what we want. You .run a fire
truck or ambulance there,-,a year from now and you look like you are
in:a war zone.
Mr. Orlowski: I think that for our own, and following up on something
that Mr. Lessard has brought out stated in:•the motion subject to
the applicant. providing us proof that he has access to said property
over this right of way. We don' t have it in this file right now.
I am sure that;-Mr. Lessard will make sure that they have it when
they go for their building permit, but we should have it for our
files also just in case.
Mr. Lessard: It is in litigation because strange as it may seem Chicago
Title guaranteed both,.:sides of the fence. How they are going to prove
it , I don't know.
Mr. Orlowski:, Well, that part we can' t worry about and we still
can' t approve that part.
Mr. Lessard: N&.1
Mr. Otlowski:But, if they have use over that right-of-way, I don' t
think this Board can hold it up.
Mr. Lessard: Well, the placement, when Sundown Farms applied for
it, they had the right-of-way on his property to the West.
Mr. Orlowski: And nobody wants:;to build that right"of-way.
Mr. Lessard: Well, he claims to have a title guarantee that
the right-of-way is on...his property.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, at this point we:.are going to move on.
Planning Board Page 22 11/9/87
On. a: motion.,made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the engineers
report for the .--final inspection of the access road. at Laurel to be
known as ".Laurel Lake Way" subject to the applicant (Gatz) submitting
proof of the right-of-way over the access road.
Vote of the:.Board; Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Walsh Park Benevlant Association
Fishers Island
Mr. Orlowski: Next, we have Walsh Park Benevolant Association.
Board to take action on this set off located at Fishers Island.
Mr. Edwards, do you want to make any comments at this time?
Mr. Edwards: No, I think everything is in order for this first phase.
Mr. Orlowski: Is this 80 , 000 square feet?
Mr. Edwards: Well, it is going to be merged with that other piece
of property next to it, it will not be a separate building lot.
I- think it is stated right on the map. No separate building lot
to be created. To be conveyed to Grebe.
Mr. Lessard: Is that part of FIDCO?
Mr. Edwards : No, this is outside of it. This is for the piece that
is going to be year round affordable housing.
Mr. Orlowski: So, we are not going to be gcreating another separate
building:- lot?
Mr. Ward: No, it is going to be merged.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, do you want to just put that in the resolution
so that it is there.
On. a motin made by Mr. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Ward, it was
RESOVLED that the' Southold Town Planning_ Board approve the set off
for Annette Zabohonski located at Fishers Island to convey property
to Grebe, subject. to said property conveyance to merge land with
existing house lot of Grebe.
Vote of the Board; Ayes: Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
* * * * * * * * * *
Nicholas Schick
SCTM # 1000-15-9-2. 6
Mr. Orlowski: Next, Nicholas Schick, Board to provide comment to
the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation .within the comment
period to expire on November 20 , 1987 with regard to the application
Planning Board Page 23 11/9/87
pending with'�that agency. Major subdivisionlocated at Orient.
In talking with Mr. Yakaboski, Esq. this evening before the Board
meeting .and Mr. Emilita the other day, we will hold this until they
get together and find out exactly what they can do. Mr. Emilita
has a few comments that we will have to run by Mr. Yakaboski to make
sure that we can proceed that way. And;;we-have enough'-time to
wait for. the next Friday. Mr. Emilita'-_will be responding within
the comments period and we can do this at the next public meeting.
Mr. Lessard: I do' t think that you need a public meeting for this
you can respond at one of the.,-afternoon sessions.
Mr. Orlowski: Well, going over it with 'David, I think we will be
looking for reversal of our decision. But, we don' t have his comments,
and our Town attorney can not make a:.resolution until we have those
comments. So, we probably will have to have a special meeting.
We will do::1.it:_;on Friday, unless you would just like take his comments
and send them over, would that be alright.
Mr. Latham: Let' s wait.
Mr. Ward: We can have a special meeting on Friday.
Mr. Orlowski: Okay, this Friday at 3 : 30 we will have a special meeting.
Sal Prato
SCTM # 1000-53-2-6
Mr. Orlowsi: Okay, Sal Prato, Board to take final action and authorize
the Chairman to;_:endorse the site plan for construction. of an electrical
contractors shop located at Greenport. We did not get the revised
plans submitted. So, therefore, we can not act on it.
Mr. Ward: What are we missing?
Mr. Orlowski: We are asking that the stamp be put on the map and
not on the copy. . Mr. Wiggons stated tocme that he would have it
in. Was there something else on Prato?
Ms. Scopaz : He was supposed to show the street trees. He had
agreed to that but now shown on the map and we asked him simply to
show that.
Mr. Ward: Why don' t we approve it subject to.
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, it was
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning; Board approve the authorize
the Chairman to endorse the site plan for Sal Prato for construction
of an electrical .contractors shop located at Greenport, SCTM # 1000
53-2-6 subject to receipt of amended surveys showing street trees
as well as a stamp and signature of a licensed surve.yorror engineer
on- the survey.
Vote of the_:.•Board; Ayes : Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Planning Board Page 24 11/19/87
Southold Tennis Club''
SCTM # 1000-59-3-32. 1
Mr. Orlowski: Southold Tennis Club. Board to take action on the
amended site plan for a tennis club located at Southold. I think
everything is in order to refer this to the Building Department
for certification.
Mr. Ward: Why don' t we approve it subject to?
Mr. Orlowski: Okay.
On a motion.-.made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Mullen,, it was
RESOLVED. that the Southold Town Planning Board approve the
amended site plan for Southold Tennis Club located at Southold.,
survey dated asrec.eived Oct. 30-1 1987 subject to certification
by the Building Department as well as including perimeter landscaping
as per the previous approved:.-site plan.
Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Mrs . Alice Hussie was present and questioned the Board' s resolution
with regard to the request for screening and landscaping. It was
explained that all landscaping as per the approved site plan must
be shown on the amended site plan proposal.
** * * * * * * * * * * * *
Strawberry:-,Fields
Eugene and Julian Davision
SCTM # 1000-121-3-5
On a motion made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Latham, the%„following
action was taken:
WHEREAS, a formal application for the--approval of a subdivision
plat, entitled "Strawberry Fields" for Eugene and Juliana Davison
was submitted to the-:•Planning Board on August 26, 1983 . and filing
fee was paidn, and
WHEREAS, a final public hearing was held on saidsubdivision and
plat at the Southold Town Hall, Main Raod, Southold, New York
on Monday, October 19, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. , and
WHEREAS, the requierments of the Subdivision Regulations of the
Town of Southold have ben met by said subdivision plat and application,
NOW, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the application of Eiigene and
Juliana Davison for approval of said subdivision plat prepared by
Rod Van Tuyl and dated January 7, 1986 .be approved and the Chairman
be authorized to endorse approval on said subdivision plat.
Vote of the Board: Ayes; Orlowski, Mullen, Latham, Ward, Edwards
Planning Board Page 25 11/9/87
Being no further business to come before. the Board, on a motion
made by Mr. Mullen, seconded by Mr. Watd, and:,,carried, the meeting
was adjourned at 9 : 07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
iane M. Scfiultze,,
Southold Town Planning Board
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ' airman
EIV'ED AND FILED BY
`.0 SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
i
DATE %/)#7 HO` RJ 9.o1a P.Ak
Town Clerk, Town of So old