Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/07/1991 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD ON JUNE 7, 1991 Appl~ No. - 4028 - RICHARD OLIVERI The Hearing opened at 7:30 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: This is in behalf of Richard Oliveri. By copy of survey indicating this parcel which is approximately 2.4 acres according to the tax map; according to the survey it is 2.38 behalf of Chandler, Palmer & King, the most recent date is May 17, 1990. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrouding areas. Is there anyone who would like ~o heard from Fishers Island tonight? Seeing no hands, I will note for the file that there is a letter from the attorney re~resentin9 the Oliveri's indicating a recess until the July meeting. Is there anyone having objection to that? Seeing no hands~ I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until July. ALL I~ FAVOR - AYE. Re (Prepared from tape recor ing) TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD ON JUNE 7, 1991 Appl. No~ 4026 - JAMES AND PATRICIA BOYLE The hearing opened at 7:35 p.m. The Ohairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: Produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C., most recent date is October 25, 1988 and pinned in on this survey is the nature of this application. I%grabbed the wrong file and have Jennie Harris' which is the next appeal. I apologize. Pinned in on the application is the elongation of the carport which is present adjacent to the one story garage. Are the Boyles here? How do you do. Could I ask you to use the mike if you wouldn't mind sir. Is there something you would like to state for the record? Can you just give us an indication of why you want another gagage or an addition to the garage. JIM BOYLE: ~ell this is a one car garage, small,and I have a carport on the side and would like to make a nice garage and carport. CHAIRMAN: The present garage is 21 feet 2 inches and I notice that you have drawn the line a little past closer to the road. What is the actual size of the gagage going to be then? JIM BOYLE: I have it written down there, I'm not too sure what they are. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Would it be about 24 feet in depth. JIM BOYLE: Approximately 24 feet. CHAIRMAN: The length of it I notice is 12'2" and you, re ~oing ~ 1. i~l~ibit past the carport. JIM BOYLE: Right. $ feet. CHAIRMAN: Three feet past the carport. Approximate. JIM BOYLE: Three or four, I'm not sure which. CHAIRMAN: I have the map but there is nothing written in on it. May be you want to take a look at it. The only reason why I ask ~sbecause I want to have it for the decision. Take your time. Page 2 - Appl No. 4026 .James and Patricia Boyle Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 MR. BOYLE: It is going to go three feet forward and four feet to the side. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate size of the carport, do you know? MR. BOYLE: 12 x 21. CHAIRMAN: It is 12 so it is going to go 15 then. O,K. This will be a one story structure. MR. BOYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate height of the ridge? Do you have any idea? MR. BOYLE: Well I know it has to be below you know no more than 18'. CHAIRMAN: O.K. then if it is a one story it should be no higher than 12'. Do you think it will be higher than 12'? MR. BOYLE: Yes, I think it will be over 8 to 12 feet. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to give us a guess. MR. BOYLE: A story and a half. CHAIRMAN: So you are going to have storage upstairs. MR. BOYLE; I don't know if ~will really have storage up there. It is going to have rafters in the roof. CHAIRMAN: What would you suggest in reference to a height situation if we were so willing to grant this variance? As an example, would you say 15'? MR. BOYLE: 15', 17' possibly 18'. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Because if it is going to be 18' it is going to be a two story garage. Really, or a story and a half. You want to give us a call and let us know exactly what you think the height is going to be. MR. BOYLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Would you mind doing that becasuse then we will know exactly what we're going to put into a decision here. Alright. This garage is only going to be used for dead storage. The storage of cars, lawmowers and other paraphenalia. Thanks so much Mr. Boyle. I$ there anyone else who would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anyone like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, any questions from board members. No. Page 3 - Appl. No. 4026 James and Patricia Boyle Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN continued: There being no further questions I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. CHAIRMAN: Just so you're aware of what we have done we just recessed the hearing, I'm sorry we closed the~bearing and we will discuss it when you give us that information. Tonight we are making decisions from the last meeting and then we wilt have a special meeting and make yours. It will be approximately two weeks. Thank you very mu~h for coming in. O.K. BOB VIlLA: Jerry, actually if you look at the land he's got there laid out to scale it shows a height of 17'. CHAIRMAN: That's my whole point Bob. It is not really a one story garage. When I refer to a one story garage, I'm referring to it as 12' which is 8' walls and 4' to the ridge. As you know, the one we had down in ?aradise Point was 23'. We restricted him to two stories to 18', I believe it was. BOB VILLA: Anytime obstruction gets this big he has 28' and then if you got a pitch on it you got to go up otherwise you have almost a flat roof. CHAIRMAN: You are right. Appl. No. 4026 - ESTATE OF JENNIE HARRIS. The Hearing opened at 7:40 p.m. The Chairman mead thele§al notice for the record and the application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: Indiicating the original lot line division this Board dealt with last year and onl lot A which is 24,502 sq. ft. we are indicating on here a pending 21'8" exitension by 23' toward the westerly side of the property. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in t~he area. Mr. Stoutenburg I assume you are going to discuss this with us. MR. STOUTENBURG: Chairman, members of the Board. I'm here basically to answer any questions that you might have as to the application or the structure. MR. and Mrs. Taylor are here also if you would like to ask any questions of them. You have this application and look at it I'm assuming that what you would see is that we are not really encm~ching beyond what the setback alreadY are of the existing structure. (inaudible) Page 4 - Appl. No. 402~ Eastate of Jennie Harris Hearing Transcript of June 7, 199I CHAIRMAN: We are not changing the nonconformity of the structure, we are merely making the non onforming structure or dwelling larger. It is still to be used as a residential structre in a light industry zone. It is a one story or will it be two story. MR. STOUTENBURG: It is a two story and will continue to be with the addition on , modified two story structure itself and whats added on to it will be twostOry. CHAIRMAn: I have no objection to it. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Stoutenburg while he is up here? No. Anybody? I ' ' ~ should point out for everybody that Mr. Din~zio will be late, he is stuck over in Amaganset and the ferries are a little tough tonight with the weekends coming but he did call us and said he would be here. I have no objection to it so we will see how the hearing develops. What's your timeliness on this? When do you want to get ~tarted? MR. STOUTENBURG: I think we actually are over in starting now so whatever you can do for us will help. CHAIRMAN: We want to thank you for putting the stakes in so we knew exactly where, It was ver~ helpful. Thank you again. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Anyone like to speak against the application. QueStions from Board members. No. Hearing no further questions I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. CHAIRMAN: Thank ~ou very much for coming in. Appl. No. 4027 -iHALSE¥ A. STAPLES The Hearing openedi at 7:46 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and the application before hearing testimony. CHAIRMAN: Copy of the survey amended on October 16, 1990 indicating a lot which we refer to as a flag lot 25' on Middleton Road Extension, and extending to the rear of Barden property and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this an~ surrounding properties in the area. The map was produced by Roderick Van Tuyl P.C. Mr. Staples would you like to be heard? Page 5 - Appl. No. 4027 Halsey A. Staples Hearing Transcript of JUne 7, 1991 MR. STAPLES: It seems that the Master Plan came down on me. I'm the last property owner to build on my lot. If I built in '88 when my abutting neighbor Roy Kling had built I wouldn't have been in this position with this Article 28, Section 281A, so paragraph 7 has to do with Joe Deyer owning all of those lots in his name so I share the same history as everyone else, but everyone else has a house on their property, I~m the last to build. Of course, strict application of this title and section would be an obvious, difficulty for me and hardship for me. As far as my lot because it is one half acre whereas all the others are one quarter and one of my abutting neighbors who just built in 1988, Roy Klin§, is less than a quarter acre, I believe. I am seeking hardship for that clause or paragraph. CHAIRMAN: The area is 22,668 sq. ft. Is that correct? MR. STAPLES: I assumed it was 33. CHAIRMAN: The survey shows a lot area of 22 and that is where my problem is here. MR. STAPLES: Maybe it is 22. What is a half acre? 25. CHAIRMAN: 20,000 MR. STAPLES: 20,000. I'm thinking of the 22 as being a half acre. CHAIRMAN: 43,560 divided by 2 is a farm acre. Could you ask Van Tuyl if that is the proper square footage so we would have it for the file? MR. STAPLES: I could, yes. It says on my tax bill .52 acres. CHAIRMAN: Let me understand you owned the house at one time that is most recent to my left as I drive into the property. Is that correct? MR. STAPLES: My wife, her name appeared on that title. CHAIRMAN: You own - MR. STAPLES: I own this lot we are talking about. CHAIRMAN: When did you buy these properties? Approximately. MR. STAPLES: The piece that you had just talked about was '67 and this I purchased in December of '69. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you purchased it after '57. MR. STAPLES: Correct Page 6 - Appl. No. 4027 Halsey A. Staples Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN: And that's why you're before us. MR, STAPLES: Joe Deyer was the problem because each of these if you will notice the report card on the surrounding properties one of the lines is split from Joe Deyer and that was the part that the building department had a problem with, was the fact that Joe Deyer owned these lots all in his name. Subsequent to '57. When I purchased the lot it was quarter acre zoning at the time . If I built anyWhere up to 1968, 1988 I would have been in good shape but the Master Plan came down on it. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions Bob on this. , BOB VILLA: Not really. I think he would have had a problem any time after 1980 with the Health Department because that was when Articl~ Six went into effect. MR. STAPLES: I have or excelled in all the requirements of every organi- zation concerned with that piece of property including the Health Department. I have met or excelled as you can see by the application. CHAIRMAN: We have Town water on that block. Is that correct? There is citywater on that block. MR. STAPLES: Yes there is city water. Yes. CHAIRMAN: There is no sewer on that block. MR. STAPLES: The Health Department has approved a two pool system for that piece. BOB VILLA: Did you see the test hole when it was put in? MR. STAPLES: I didn't see the test hole. No. BOB VILLA: Because it shows here that ground water is at 17 feet from grade. ~ find that hard to MR. STAPLES: The rear grade. Not the front grade. There is an embankment there. I'm going to tuck the house into that embankment. The embankment will be the rear yard and there is 17 feet on the rear yard area downtoward. BOB VILLA: That shows as an elevation of about 15 and it shows a low elevation down by the water to be about 10. MR. STAPLES: The upper level. The 15' level where a pair of 6' pools meets the criteria of the Health Department. MR. VILLA: You could get two pools in but I was just Questioning the test hole because the test hole shows 17' of water. Page 7 - Appl. No. 4027 Halsey A. Staples Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 MR. STAPLES: It may have been a mismeasurement on their part. I don't know. It may have been a rise where they did the test hole or they may have picked the highest point. CHAIRMAN: You have Health Department approval for this lot then. MR. STAPLES: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN: O.K. MR. STAPLES: I have met or excelled in every board except the building department had a problem with Joe Deyer owning all the lots. That's the only thing I had a problem with. CHAIRMAN: That Nealth Department approval is predicated on your using the Town water system. Is that correct? MR. STAPLES: Yes, that is correct. If city water is available you have to use it so I will be using it. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Staples. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone like to speak against the application? Any further questions? Hearing no further questions I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. Appl. No. 4024 - RONALD STRITZLER, M.D. The Hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and the application before hearing testimony. CHAIRMAN: Survey by Young and Young dated February 14, 1973 indicating the nature of this lot. Actually it is a total of 3.9 acres but this particular lot is 2.464 and the location of the tennis court is 60' from Soundview Avenue', 25' from the westerly property line. We will ask the applicant in reference to size . I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area~ Is Dr. Stritzer here? LINDA: He didn't think he could make it. There is a letter in the file. CHAIRMAN: O.Ko Did he indicate to us if this was going te be lighted or unlighted. Page 8 - Appl. No. 4024 Ronald Stritzler, M.D. Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 LINDA: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN: Do we have any indication that these lots are in single and separate ownership or if they are merged and what are they. LINDA: They are merged. I couldn't find any approval upon it. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, we don't have to worry about putting a primary structure on, this being the only primary sturucture on this.lot. LINDA: That is correct. I can assure you of that. CHAIRMAN: He is not looking to build a house on his front lot. LINDA: Not todaY. He is aware of it. CRAIRMAN: The only question I have for the good doctor is if he intends to light the tennis court. If you want to close it or what do you want to do.' Do you want to close it or recess it until he gets back to us. What do you want to do on this? LINDA: I don't want to close it until we get an answer. CHAIRMAN: O.K. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak against this application? Soundview Avenue in Mattituck tennis court in the frontyard area. There is no one here. I will make a motion closing the hearing based upon the fact that the letter comes back within two weeks, if not, we will have to reopen the hearing. I make that as a motion. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE Appeal No. 4029 - CHARLES AND ANGELA KYRIAKOUDES The Hearing opened at 7:57 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for. the record and the application before hearing testimony. CHAIRMAN: Copy of the site plan from Michel. & AssociaTes most recent_date is 3/1/91. Nature of this application is basically Zoning Ordinance 239.4 and distance from. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could I ask you to state your name for the record. You don't have to get up. Page 9 - Appl. No. 4029 Charles and Angela Kyriakoudes Hearing Transcript of JUne 7, 1991 MR. MICHEL: Good evening. My name is Michael Michel and Michel & Associates is the firm. CHAIRMAN: I apologize. MR. MICHEL: It's o.k. I think we documented quite a bit of information about our interpretation and why we proposed what we did. I mights if this is easier, for you to read. You will probably have to help me a little bit. Our problems began when we interpretated the Code to read from a line that was struck by the DEC. From there the house was cited as 75' setback and from there we began all of our preliminary design from the deck and the pool. The point at which we impact on the Town of Southold setback which is 75' from the setback or from the bulkhead is in three particular points, one bin9 like here, one being a portion of the whirlpool, one being a portion of the swimming pool itself. The point at which we will have the greatest impact is with the deck and that is 10'~ We have had an opportunity to stake the site outand also provide some . photograph to help the members of the Board take a look at it. This is our request stated simply and we would b~ happy to answer any of your questions. It is a wood deck and it is a gunite swimming pool. We have made application to the DEC. We have a current valid permit from the DEC for the construction of a house, singl~ family dwelling. We have also made an application to the, DEC to amend that permit for the construction of a pool and deck. We would have gotten that letter this week except the DEC has made some miscalculations. They had made claim we were over in our percentage of lot coverage which is their manner of speculation. Their method of calculation is difference than yours, but I have received a letter recently from Charles Bowman from Land Use. I hope you are familiar with his firm. I have a oopuple of copies for the Board members. He told us that we have made a clearer application again to the DEC that has been submitted and we should receive a copy of our amended permit on Wednesday or so of this week. It was their error in their calculations. CHAIRMAN: All those driven piles that we are looking at when we look at this stand toward the bulkhead with our backs to the bulkhead looking toward the house Those are the support for the deck? MR. MICHEL: Those are the support for both the pool and the deck. Both are going to be constructed on piles. CHAIRMAN: To waht height is the actual pool and deck area going to be from grade? MR. MICHEL: From the grade that you were standing on? Approximately a foot lower there more or less, approximately from where you'r standing. Page 10 - Appl. No.4029 Charles and Angela Kyriakoudes Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN: A foot lower from where I'm standing. MR. MICHEL: The current existing elevation out there is aboutapproximately between 11½ and 13 and the elevation of the pool I believe is set at 11.5, so its thereabouts. CHAIRMAN: The top of the pool. When he is talking he is not talking lowest floor area like we talk, ~BOB VILLA: Are you g~ing to have to actually excavate or cut those piles down? MR. MICHEL: Oh yes, the piles will be cut down. Those piles are cut at grade, There was a question Ms. Kowalski mentioned or requested from me in terms of the actual depth of the pool. I think I included them in the letter. The depth of the pool will be 8' so that will be set from grade at approximately elevation three, the bottom of the pool. Then the pool will go up. The bottom of the pool will be at elevation three and it will go up from there to 11.5 or so. BOB V~LLA: What is the elevation of the top of the bulkhead right now? MR. MICHEL: The elevation of the top of the bulkhead is approximately 8, it sort of varies between 7½ and 8½. LINDA: Is the pool in our jurisdiction Jerry? MR. MICHEL: We have some spot grades on the site plan and it shows 8. I've been listening this evening to some of the - that you are hoping to withold some decisions and render decision at a later time and I would request from the Board if we could our approval subject to our getting the letter from the DEC since at this point we are no longer on the eve of summer, we're just about in summer and we would like to, the contractor is waiting to go and everyone is waiting to get this thing built so that we anticipate probably a month and a half of construction between the deck and the terrace and the pool'. BOB VILLA: What will be the land service from the pool to the bulkhead? MR. MICHEL: ~t will remain undisturbed as shown. ~t will probably be seeded with grass, Theme are certain restrictions from the DEC so we will probably seed it with some sand~ the type of grass seed that will grow in a weak soil, a sandy soil. We do realize the restrictions in terms of fertilazation. CHAIRMAN: The riprap which lies below the bulkhead, that is the nature of this interpretation, is it not? MR. MICHEL: I believe so, yes. We have an existing riprap wall and we had the bulkhead and the DEC describe their line right at the high water mark. CNAIRMAN: Is any of the riprap under water at the high water mark?. MR. MICHEL: Yes it is. Approximately half of !t. The riprap continues not necessarily contiguous but for approximately 20 in depth and 10 of it is under water - high water. Page 11 - Appl. No.4029 Charles and Angela Kyriakoudes Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN: Does the bulkhead run the entire length of the property. MR. MICHEL: Yes it does. CHAIRMAN: I couldn't determine that with some of the foliage there. Thats the reason why I asked the question, I don't have any further questions upless anyone else does. Thank you very lmuch for your presentation. MR. MICHEL: You ~ill let us know when i~is tim~ for th~ d~isi~. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else~) who would like to speak in favor of this application. Would anyone like to speak against the application? There being no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing and ~es6rving:decisi~n, ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. Appl. Nos. 4011V and 4010SE - JOSEPH AND LINDA FISCHETTI The Hearing opened at 8:05 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and the application before hearing testimony. Survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated February 6, 1991 indicating a parcel approximately 80' plus or minus by 141.05 plus. I have a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Fischetti? MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Joseph Fischetti. I'm here for my wife, Linda, who is actually the applicant. The property was purchased in 1986 prior to the adoption of the ~oning ordinance. The property at that time was designated residential/office in the proposed ordinance. The strict conformity of the bulk schedule of the zoning ordinance would deprive us t'he right of the use of that property enjoyed by other property owners in that zoning district. A check of the zoning map will show that there are three lo'ts on the east side of Oaklawn Avenue which have been p~r~osely and consciously included in the residential office zone. Each one of these properties is less than 40,000 sq. ft. The Planning Board and the consultants indicated that this is suited for residential office by designating those as residential office. The rear of the property is the Presbyterian church. On the north side is Dr. Campbell's office, across the street is Southold high school. The granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and will not be injurious to the neigh- borhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. I hope that you will agree with this. Page 12 - Appl. No. 4011 and 4010SE Joseph and Linda Fischetti Hearing Transcript of JUne 7, 1991 CHAIRMAN: Just for the record it is an interesting point having three parcels designated RO and not one of them meet the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum. I have no idea what the wisdom was at the time of the creation of that. Can you give us an example t~ what degree you intend to utilize this premises. MR. FISCHETTI: We only use the downstairs floor. The calculations for the parking are done just for the officearea. The second floor would be used only for storage of records. It would be used for professional office space in accordance with the zoning ordinance, the way it is now for residential office. There would be no changes in the structure or in the site work. Basically, it will stay just as it. There is enough places for five parking spaces for the Planning Board. We know we have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval on this if you accept it. We spoke to all our neighbors. The neighbor, Rinny Terry on the other side is fine. He has no question. Dr. Campbell is on one side. The people in the back won't complain and the school is across the street. I feel that it is very suited for the use of office space. CHAIRMAN: You said you would only be utilizing the first story. MR. FISCHETT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN: What would the second story be? MR. FISCHETTI: Storage of records. CHAIRMAN: So you would actually be taking, what we refer to as a nonconforming structure or dwelling at this point and placing it into a conformity situation. MR. FISCHETTI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN: I thank you Mr. Fischetti. BOB VILLA: One question. Is the house being occupied right now? MR. FISCHETTI: That is right. We have it rented to a nice young family. It is so difficult when-the zoning ordinance is in place that it takes so long to get your special exceptions. It has been rented and we will leave them in there until they want to leave but we are doing this. ~ soon as we find the economy back again we will probably go in there and do some CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE ? - Th6resa Reill~ ~ //__._ (Prepared from tape recording) APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa ~ Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN O~ SOUTHOLD TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JIJNE 7,1991 Appl. No. 4031 - ESTATE OF CHARLES MORGAN. The hearing opened at 8:25 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and the application before receiving testira~ny. CHAIRMAN: This garage is approximately 130 feet from Jackson's Landing, I think the prior decision said it had to be 150 feet. And the survey was produced by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated April 26, 1991. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would lika to be heard? How do you do, sir? JOSEPH FETTON: My name is Joseph Fetton, if it ~uld please the Board. 300 Jackson St., New Suffolk. Ray Radigan, who made this application, and I are the attorneys for the Estate~ but because I'm a neighbor as well and I've known Mr. Morgan, or knew Mr. Morgan for more than 50 years and I've been his neighbor for more than 25 years, and I'm familiar with the property, I'm appearing in behalf of the Estate. Since there's nobody left alive to apologize, I'll apologize for the fact that this accessory structure is 130 feet from the property line when it should have been 150 feet. Mr. Morgan was a very meticulous person. He was himself a developer. He helped develop Eastern Shores Development here. He was a very fine man, and I want to assure the board that he was not the kind of person who would flout a decision that you made. I can't Page 2 - Applo No. 4031 Matter Of the Estate of Charles Morgan Hearing Transcript of June 7, 1991 MR. FETTON: explain it. I've researched to the best of my ability. I spoke to Joe Deerkoski who did the -- what happened here was there was a house, a smaller house that Mr. Morgan bought from Mary Reichert. And he wanted to put two wings on the house~ and one of them -- there was an accessory building. A garage and storage shed which was in the way so that it had to be moved. So he came to this board and he asked for--made an application to move it~ Deerkoski said he had nothing to do with the moving. He wasn't sure who did the moving. He thinks it was Prank Zaneski. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Zaleski. MR. FETTON: Zaleski, but he~s not sure. And he thinks what may have happened is that Mr. Morgan, who was then living in Douglaston and who wasn't here all the time told him, "make sure the garage is 150 feet from the property line.'~ The garage is 150 feet, but the other part of that building which is 20 feet brought it to 130 feet. But I'm speculating. Now. ~nere we're at now, the property was sold on May 1st, we agreed-the Estate agreed that it would use its best efforts to get a Certificate of Occupancy. We had a Certificate for the work that was done by Deerkoski. When we asked for the Certificate for the accessory building, they asked that -- the Building Dept. asked for a survey. We provided the up-to-date survey. They saw what had happened here, and they said the way to go is to ask you people for an amended variance or a variance which permits the structure where it is. I then contacted, and of course by this procedure the two adjoining property owners, James Connor and Vincent Tess had to be notified~ Both ~ere notified. I've spoken to both; they're my friends and neighbors. Each one has authorized me to state to you that they would prefer the accessory building to stay where it is rather than move it 20 feet. And I have prepared an affidavit -- I'd like to submit which sets forth this fact. CHAIRMAN: (Receiving affidavit) Thank you. MR. FETTON: As far as the practical difficulties that are Page 3 - Appl. No. 4031 Matter of the Estate of Charles Morgan Bearing Transcript of June ?~ 1991 ME. FETTON, continued: involved here, some of them are obvious. There's a cost involved. We're trying to settle an Estate. We have a widow who"s in a wheelchair and she can use all the money she can get. And wa'have money that's been set aside to take care of the possibility to move structure. We have a perfect elipse. The road comes in and then it goes around in front of the house. And if we move the garage so that it is 150 feet, it's going to encroach on that elipse and that will require us to move the asphalt paving, destroy the sy~Lmetry, take down some trees, and relocate a pump closer. But we may be able to leave the well where it is. It's a lot of work and I'd like to point out the surrounding situation, because if you start at Kimogenor Point which is at the western end of Jackson Street. There's a row of garages, 11 garages. They start one foot from the property line. And I had some pictures that will demonstrate this. The next one - The Dill property, that's about 70 feet. Tese is 70 feet; I'd like to talk about that a bit more because about five years ago you people gave him a variance. And permitted it 70 feet. Gehring is under 50 feet, he's to the east. Marvin is 50 ft. Manning is 15 feet. And just east Of Manning the garage is incorporated into a house and that's also hbout 15 feet. It's almost right on the road. MR. RADIGAN: These are the original pictures. MR. FETTON: My garage is the only one that is further away than 150 feet. And that's part of a nonconforming building because there are two houses on that property but that goes back 75 or 80 year~ and that's not pertinent. I just wanted to point out that of all of the accessory structures on the street and I don't have to tell you that we're talking about waterfront property. And the front is the back yard on all waterfront property, and that is why you have as many appli- cations as you do with respect to it. Nobody is going to build a garage on the water side or--almost nobody. So they will go here. The logical place is where the garage is. It's in a gulley. It's unobtrusive. If you look at these Page 4 - App1. No. 4031 (Morgan Estate) June ' 7~, 1991 Hearing MR. FETTON, continued: pictures, you'll clearly see that it's been landscaped with rhododendroms so it's --you can't see it, from the road. it=s yearround that way because they're evergreens. I don't think any practical purpose would be served to require the moving of the structure the 20 feet. To sum it up, I guess the -- I would like you to determine as a matter of fact that Caere is sufficient practical difficulties here. That the circumstances are unique. That no material change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the adjoining property will take place by this variance or an amendment to it. Particularly since we asked that the existing structure stay 'Enere it's been for more than 25 years. The problem cannot be easily alleviated except by considerablt expense and changes affecting the adjoining.~property, and it's in keeping or exceeds existing variances or conditions. ~ne variance will not change population density or affect safe~ health, welfars~ comfort or convenience of the town. And the circumstances sur~unding the problem and the simplicity of the solution suggests that the interests of justice will be best served by sar~tifying the existing situation, taking note of the fact that 20 feet out of 150 feet is less than 15%. Leaving the accessory building almost twice as far as any other such building on the block. Thank you for your courtesy. CHAIrmAN: Thank you, Mr. Fetton. Is there anybody else either for or against? MR. FETTON: We'd like to submit ~ue Tesa decision to you. CHAIRMAN: Surely. Thank you. MR. FETTON: I would also like to point out that the Estate Tax Return is due July 5th and we'd like to settle the estate. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fetton, what did you say the Dill house garage was--the distance? MR. FETTON: I didn't mark it off, but it}s on a line with the Tese one and that~ 70 feet. So I'd say it's 70. It looks closer if you look at the picture here. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it does. That's why I asked. I don't think I was on the board when we ~id the Dill one. Page 5 -Appl? No. 4031 (Morgan Es~e) June ~ 1991 Hearing MR. FETTON: I think Dill did his before the law was changed- 195~7. Maybe. That's my recollection. C~AIRMAN: Does anyone have ~ny objections? Anyone to speak either for or against? (None) Seeing no hands. I'll make a motion to amend t]~e original decision which stated a minimum of 150 feet to 130 feet and thereby granting this particular accessory structure to be used only for accessory purposes incidental to the main dwelling of the house at 130 feet. M~BER VILLA: Second. (See findings of fact and r~solution in Minutes and filed with Town Clerk's Office.) ~inda !{owalskf, Board Clerk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Chairman Supervisor Goehringer, Charles Grigonis, Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Din~zio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD Obi JUNE 7, 1991 Appl. No. 4022-SE - CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a METRO ONE. This hearing was recessed from the April 30, 1991 meeting, and the statements made during the hearing are as follows: 8:12 p.m. Hearing reconvened. CHAIRMAN: Ok. We'll go back to the application for Metro One, Cellular Telephone, which was opened at the last regularly scheduled meeting, and we had some questions of Mr. Smith at that point. Mr. Smith, are you going to continue. ALLEN M. SMITH, ESQ.: ~ was going to defer to my young friend whose name is really on this application (William Moore, Esq.) and is now back from (a journey) with his wife. But to take the lead,,~ I shall. When we left off last together, there were a number of items that you wished addressed. The first was to move the tower as such that it would not fall down on the property to the north if it were to come down, and we've done that. And I understand that Mr. Moore had provided you with a stipulation from Mr. Baxter relative to the parcel to the south. He has a drawing I believe he may have drawn that depicts that for you. One of the board members or member of the audience asked a question relative to the structural integrity of the antenna as distinct from the structural integrity of the monopole, and I have sent NLr. Goehringer the information that relates to the fact that the antenna will take at least as much force, wind force, as with the pole. Relative to the FAA, the position of the FAA remains the same, such that you can understand both the Page 2 - Hearing Transcript for Cellular Telephone Co. ZBA Meeting of June 7 ~ 1991 ALLEN SMITH, continued: engineering and legalistic gobbilly-gook that contained in the FAA letter. It says that it~be lighted with a white stroh light during daylight hours, and lighted with a red light during the evening. We supplied for you to location of not only the JFK tower, the monopole that was referenced~- in the earlier testimony that I provided you, although not owned by Metro but are of a similar design. The last thing that I sent to Mr. Goehringer since our last meeting was a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Riverhead, which has considered similar applications to the one that is before you for whatever it is worth as I said in the letter. I believe that is the checklist that we left off with the other day. If there are any additional questions, we will answer them. I do recall one. Mr. Moore has in fact spoken with some representatives of the AEMTs associated with the Mattituck Fire Department. t believe that we're authorized to say that they consider the enhancement of the cellular mobile facilities on the North Fork to be an advantage to them. The reason is that if I were to have a heart-attack and they were to come get me with their more sophisticated apparatis, they actually hook me into certain monitoring of devices. A heart monitor, block pressure and the like. And that data is relayed by Cellular Telephone, I believe, to a hospital on the South Side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: South Side Hospital in Bay Shore. MR. SMITH: South Side hospital on Long Island, where if I'm being transported to Central Suffolk (Hospital) or if I'm being transported to wherever the emergency system dictates on , the AEMTs in the Mattituck ambulance or rescue vehicle can in fact buy As I understand it, by reason of the fact that we do not have in this area on the North Fork a detailed telephone system. There are sometimes difficulties in doing the transmitting back to South Side Hospital, and I believe we're authorized to say that. Other than that I think we've answered Everything that we had left open from the earlier meeting. If there are any other questions, I'll attempt to answer them. Page 3 - Hearing Transcript~6r cei~ar Telephone Co. ZBA Meeting of June 7 · 1991 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The approximate, and I apologize for this- but the approximate height of the antenna is 104 feet, is that not correct? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN: We're at 104 feet, is that correct? Ok. And we are 95 feet from the northerly property line. Ok. Now we're at 103. MR. SMITH. Yes (referring to map). CHAIRMAN: So we're right on, approximately. And this is going to be the fall-back area right in here (referring to map). MR. SMITH: Yeah, and he's going to sign a covenant to that effect. MR. (neighbor): I just wanted to see that. CHAIRMAN: Now, what did you want to look at, Bob? BOB : That; I just wanted to see it for what it-- Let's see. It would impinge on that one. This one would definitely. This was the one that I was concerned about. Ok. CHAIRMAN: All right. Good. Did you have anything else for the record? MR. SMITH: I tried to be responsive as best I could. I don't have anything more or less to say. I'd appreciate a decision at the board's convenience. CHAIRMAN: I have not gotten to Laurelton yet. I ~ried to go today, and I didn't make it. What I'm going to ask is both the indulgence of both you and Mr. Moore and what I'm going to do is request the board that we close this he,ring as to any further verbatim testimony, and that we just close the hearing as a matter of formality at the next regularly scheduled meeting, when I do make it up there and if I do have further questions, I can communicate with you by mail. Does anyone have any objec- tions to that? MR. SMITH: Very good, sir. None. Thank you. Have a good evening. Page 4 - Hearing Transcript for Cellular Tslephone Co. ~ ZBA Meeting of June 7 · 1991 CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in behalf of this application? ~ (No response.) Hsaring no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing this until the next regularly scheduled meeting, at which time we will close it as a matter of formality (written record to be closed and file sealed at next regularly scheduled meeting) and-- BOARD CLERK: Closing all verbatim testimony? CHAIRMAN: And we are closing all verbatim testimony (at this time). MEMBER VILLA: Second° The verbatim portion of the hearing was declared closed and the written portion of the record was permitted to remain open for questions and answers, by mail, until the next regularly scheduled meeting at which time the file would be sealed (record concluded). VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Messrs. Goehringer, Villa, Doyen and ~r~§0niSo (Member Dinizio was absent from this particular hearing.) Respectfully submitted, Linde ~. Kowalski, Board Clerk