Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/24/1991 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1991 Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer and Members: Dinizio, Grigonis and Villa. Absent: Member Doyen (Fishers Island) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 25-30 persons ~n the audience. Aopl. No. 4060 - ANTHONY C. MEISEL The Hearing opened at 7:35 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. I have a copy of the survey indicating a one story, one family dwelling on the corner of New Suffolk Road and Fanning Road in New Suffolk. The nature of this application is a deck protruding into the front yard with lattice work fence around it and I have acopy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround- ing properties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard in behalf of this? MR. MEISEL: I just wanted to explain on this which ti think is fairly obvious, but I'd like to repeat it. CHAIRMAN: Could I please ask you to use the mike because we are taking this down. MR. MEISEL: Better? When I purchased this property eight years ago there was ~a deck that came with it and it was not even noticed on the survey which I guess was an assumed mortgage. The deck rotted out a few years ago and we replaced it in tSe exact same perimeter. It~ essentially been in one form or another ten years and no one noticed it until September. ~ just wanted to make clear that it's a preexisting structure. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate size of it. MR. MEISEL: I2 x 20'. Page 2 - Appl. No. 4060 Anthony C. Meisel Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 CHAIRMAN: What would y~u say is the approximate distance to the front property line~ MR. MEISEL: I do have the measurements of the exact distance it overlaps the setback which is 9.3' CHAIRMAN: If we had a 35' setback, we have 35.8 9.8. Is that correct? MR. MEISEL: Part of the problem with this parcel is that there is literally no back yard. It is a very odd shaped little lot. CHAIRMAN: Are you planning on doing any changes on it? I notice that a portion of it from the front appears to have a roof over it. MR. MEISEL: It is not a roof. It's a removable canvas awning. CHAIRMAN: Can you take that off in the winter time? There will be no other changes, there will be no roofs on it. MR. MEISEL: No permanent struc~eson top at all. The frame work and screening is simply to give some privacy and not to be a structural support of any sort. CHAIRMAN: Is~there any overhead lighting used at night or anything of that nature? MR. MEISEL: No, we have usg a lantern. CHAIRMAN: We thank you sir. Am I pronouncing your name correctly? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application, anybody like to speak against the application? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. We will make a decision later or the next meeting~sir. We'll get back to you by mail. We thank you for coming in. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE. Page 3 -~Appl. ~o~ 4059 - DOROTHY ~§~AREY Hearing-Jranscrlp~ of October 24, The Hearing opened at 7:39 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a site plan used by Samuels & Steelman which indicates the proposed additions and their sizes on at least two sides of the house and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Nancy, would you like to be heard concerning this? MS. STEELMAN: I'm with Samuels & Steelman, Architects and repre- senting Mrs. Carey tonight. Basically on this application we are wanting to increase the dining room area ~nd alsolocate a new deck adjacent to the dining room. The proposed additions are approxi- mately 6' x 10 ½' the dining room area and the deck is approximately 8 x 11'. This site is a small lot that is approximately 9000 ft. and in this situation she has two front yards setbacks that are being required and she is on a corner lot and that existing house sideyards are basically on the property line 2½ to 3' so she is finding she is having a difficult time adding to any part of the house. In the one setback we are trying to work in a fairly small additions that will work best with her. I will answer any questions. CHAIRMAN: The portion of the house that juts out now that you're encompassing, I assume we would refer to it as the rear of the house because it really is the rear of the house even though" there are two front yards on the property. That's the dining room area you are adding on. MS. STEELMAN: That is on Edgemere Lane. CHAIRMAN: The proposed addition is adjacent to the deck. What is the addition on the rear of the house. MS. STEELMAN: The other side which we are not encroaching on the setbacks, that's two walkin closets and existing mechanical room which is basically bring the lines across. You will find on that setback, I guess that is about a 5' sideyard setback based on previous zoning codes. CHAIRMAN: The proposed deck on Edgemere Avenue, that will not be roofed in any way ? MS. STEELMAN: No. That is open above. The additions are quite small. I think it is really 63 sq. ft actual building area and she is just meeting that area right in that room on the dining room side. The proposed additions on the other side of the house towards the garage but those are two bedrooms there and it is very difficult to build on that side. The existing house refers to as a 35' setback Page 4 - Appl. No. 4059 Dorothy F. Carey Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 MS. STEELMAN - continued has 10' on the sides so the existing house is definitely not conforming within the setbacks and with the two sideyards the buildable area is very minimal. She is kind of in a rough hardship condition. CHAIRMAN: We thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard concerning this application. Is there anyone in favor, against. You're welcome to use the mike. Just state your name for the record. MARGERY WALKER: I'm Margery Walker of Edgemere Park. The first thing that we are objecting to is the fact that our properties are adjacent and we were not advised of this Hearing. I feel we should have been. Your zoning code reads that a written notice containing the information shall be sent to every owner of property immediately adjacent thereto and our lot land is adjacent. runs parallel to the point of the question, the questionable area and we are the closest to it. CHAIRMAN: We have a problem with that Margery, to be honest with you, Mrs. Walker, I should say. There are two schools of thought on this. We have been working on the possibility of doing posting as opposed to, or in concert with, the possibility of doing certified mail. We have a problem with the posting issue. You would not be notified in any case because i~s trunkcated by a road in between. I know it is a private street and you have a right-of-way over it as well as everybody else has a right-of-way over it. The only real way you would be notified Ss if we wouldn't go to a posting situation and a certified mail situ'ation. , The problem we have with the posting situation is that in this area it wouldn't be very effective but in an area where it is open, the sign would be put up and ten minutes later it would blow away. That's pretty much the reason why I have not been in favor of it. MARGERY WALKER: It is understandable. However, I think if your codes that adjoining that would apply to us but adjacent, according to the dictionary, is lying near or close to adjoin~ng,_b~rd~n~ng or neighboring. Technically speaking, we adjoin because both of us own property to the middle of the road where they meet so we could use either adjacent or ad]oi'oi-pg.~ most certainly should have been notified, particulanly since we are closer to this question]able piece where they are asking relief. The second thing we are concerned with is that normally you're not supposedto come before the zoning board unless you have no other options and Mrs. Carey owns an entire vacant lot behind her house. The existing house is now two to three feet from it so that she is already pushing and the logical place for a deck would be off the big room that is pushing into the other lot. It doesn't seem right to overcrowd age ^ppi. No. Dorothy F. Carey Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 MARGERY WALKER: continued an already, and I'm using your words, substandard lot, to add more when there is an entire vacant l~t to.~e utilized. What they are doing obviously, is to try to crowd the lotitoget what they want and then they are saving the vacant lot in ~h~-ch to sell. Now, in theory, if that were done you already got a situation, you've a house that is 2½ ft from the side and if they sell and build another, we've got an additional crowded situalti.on and I d. on't th.ink we. should and allow them'tO compromise theCal'ues in there by overcrowding this lot. They should merge the two and make their expansions the right way into the lot they own. Do you have a copy of the survey showing the second lot they own. CHAIRMAN: [ have a tax map copy when I went down there Mrs. Walker and it does appear to be one piece of property to me. MARGERY WALKER: They own both of these and you can see the house, where the house is already here. Now the next thing that comes to mind is the 20% coverage,~that would mean one fifth that means that five of these could fit into this to be conforming and [ couldn't do it. I cut that out and [ tried to put that in. I don't have a phenomenon but I think that they are over their 20% and again, it is wrong because they have an entire lot in whlch they could do it. If they would merge the Two they would have more than enough space to do whatever they wished. CHAIRMAN: I do have a copy of the letter from Ms. Steelman here which indicates the allowable lot coverage to be 1814 sq. ft. and the actual lot coverage with the additions proposed at 1766 so it is just under the 20%. MARGERY WALKER: I~ ~n't know. I would have to see ~ clinometer for the figures because if you look at what I have put there and you try to put Five of those on that lot I don't think it is possible, but maybe it is. CHAIRMAN: we!ll afford you a copy of this after the hearing. MARGERY WALKER: The thing says there is no way, the only location for the deck is where they are proposing ~t and of course that is not so, they can go to the north. The second says that the dimens~on~ limit any reasonable additions to the existing home and that is wrong also since they have an entire~ lot to be able to mcve into. We would strongly urge that you deny this variance and have the merged lot and do it with much more space and Facility. Page 6 - Appl. No. 4059 Dorothy F. Carey Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 CHAIRMAN: Nancy is there something you would like to say in rebuttal? MR. WALKER: The thing that is also objectionable is that the deck would be in their frontyard and also ours. CHAIRMAN: That is the question I was going to ask Ms. Steelman. IF they were proposing any screening. MR. WALKER: As it is, she is closer than what sheshould be now and it will be that much closer to our frontyard. MARGERY WALKER: Most all the lots in Edgemere Park have merged lots and they are larger. She is not the only one that ~s small but the majority of them are much larger and the houses have all been improved and it would seem to me particularly with the potential of greater overcrowding if another house is put on that, the lot that she is saving, that would be detrimental to the values of the community. CHAIRMAN: Thank ~ou. Could I just ask you to hold up one second. Mr. Dinizio~ could you make a copy of this for Mrs. Walker. MS. STEELMAN: One of the things I can state is that these are the current zoning code being an exempt subdivision it wasn't required that those lots were merged at any time and I think that the owner feels she has two separate lots and has always kept them as two separate lots. I think the Zoning Board can state that she has to merge those two lots if they are legal and separate. Margery should know if she is in real estate and I think that there is a certain that has always been ~n investment point that additional lot can serve as a nest egg in the future if she wanted to sell that or passed down to her kids or whatever. I think at that level I do~t think the Board can mand~torilly state that she needs to merge those two lots. CHAIRMAN: Let me just refr~hmy memory here. What you are saying is that Edgemere Park is on the exempted list so therefore each lot that is presently in single and separate ownership, each lot stands on its own unless it is merged or somehow placed structure across two lot lines or whatever the case may be. Secondly, was this property ever checkerboardded in any way~ Was there a merger by death or anythin~ of that nature? MS. STEELMEN: Not that I know of. There was always two separate lots that were bought, even at separate times' for the period of their stay in the house. MARGERY WALKER: May I comment on that? I know that it is on the excepted list and what Nancy says is right except that if you do have two lots and you do want to go beyond the coverage and you have the means with which to do it you should not ask to have a variance to keep i% all confined to one lot rather than use the means at your disposal. Page 7 Appl. No. 4059 Dorothy F. Carey Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask one more euestion of Ms. Steelman. Thank you Mrs. Walker. Are you planning any screening around the proposed deck area? MS. STEELMAN: At this point there is an existing hedge that runs around the perimeter of her property along both front yards. There wasn't anything additional intended other than that hedge. It is really a low hedge, probably around 3½ foot CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. MARGERY WALKER: May I just say one thing. I just noticed in your zoning that you are supposed to consider whether what you are allowed will cause an overcrowding of the land. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Walker we have that for you, a copy of that. That will give you the specifics. Nearing no further comment I will make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. PAGE 8 Appl. No. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 The Hearing opened at 7:52 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the ~'.record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: We are opening both hearings up in concert of each other. I have a copy of the site plan, several maps, most of which are most re- cently dated in front of as indicating the exact placement of these two structures which are to the rear of the existing and I will refer to it as a commercial building which houses several uses on County Road 48 , approximately two parcels ea~'t of the landfill and the rear of which abuts the landfill belonging to the Town of Southold. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map ~ndi~ating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Ms. Ongioni. MEMBER DINIZIO: At this time I would like to state that I work for a company that may compete with your business or perhaps even be a partner so as not to compromise the Board's decision, I am going to abstain and leave the room. MS. ONGIONI: Good evening Chairoerson Goehringer and Board members. I'm Marie Ongioni with offices at 218 Front Street in Greenport. I represent NYNEX Communication in this application for approval of the variance application before the Board for the sideyard setback and also the rearyard setback. In addition, we are ~efore the Board for a determination as to the requirement of this being categorized as a Special Exception as permitted in the Code or if the project would be exempt from the Special Exception because it qualifies as a telephone exchange. If it does qualify as a public utility structure and it has the public utility licensing from New York State and all of that has been submitted to the Board, it i~. our contention that this is, in addition to ~ publi~ utility structure;i~ is a telephone exchange and as such it is a permitted use in the' L~ district, rather than permitted as a Special-Exception. I have a representative from NYNE× who will address the Board as to the definition of the telephone exchange in the industry and the fact, in his opinion, this does indeed qualify as a telephone exchange. If the Board concludes that it is a telephone exchange then it will be a permitted use as Special Exception rule would not be needed. Otherwise, in the alternative, I would argue to the Board that it cualifies as a Special ExcePtion and should be given that status. Befor~ I turn over the presentation to Mr. Sam Ajaeb of NYNEX I have a memorandum which I would like to submit to the Board. I'm no~ going to review the memo in detail with you, I'm submitting it for the record. It outlines the nature of the variances that are being requested. It covers the legal case law that supports the granting of this variance and also, it briefly outlines the distinction between telephone exchange and Special Exception. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Page 9 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. ~--= Hearing Transcript of October 24, I991 MS. ONGIONI: Does the Board have any questions of me at this time? CHAIRMAN: Well, we ask the same question when Mobile One came before u8 in Mattituck. I don't mean to be ignorant concerning this but I asked the question at that time and I believe Mr. Smith was repre- senting Mobile One, what is the different functionsof the two companies and I don't know if you can answer that question. My question is basically, are you both in competition with each other, is there any unanimity between the two .~f.you. MS. ONGIONI: I think Mr. Ajaeb ~ul'd be the proper person to answer that. Mr. Ajaeb of NYNEX. CHAIRMAN: How do you do sir. MR. AJAEB: Sam Ajaeb, Manager Real Estate NYNEX Mobile. Chairman, to answer your question. At the time of divesture, it was intended by the Justice Department and the FCC to allow Jthe ~blic the choice of a telephone company in a non-telephone company referred to as a non-wi~e =}yneito p~6~*de cellular service. NYNEX is the Wire line telephone company. Metro One, they are now known as Cellular ONe,~-~ is the non-wire line. There are two choices. We are in the same · business, two different companies. CHAIRMAN: So in other words, Metro One would be using NYNEX wires. MR. AJAEB: New YOrk Telephone, yes. In other words, New YOrk and also long distance carriers, possibly AT & T, Sprint or whatever. CHAIRMAN: That answers my question. Thank you. MR. AJAEB: I just wanted to give a brief overview. I think the Board has an understanding of who we are. We are the cellular subsidiary of NYNEX. New YOrk Telephone is the major subsidiary of NYNEX. What we intend to do here is we are expanding our cellular network to eastern Long Island. This would be a cellular base station, one of about 130 that are in operation now in the metropolitan area, approximately 30 of these base stations are in operation now on Long Island. They consist of a 12 x 26 building with grade storing radio equipment and 100' monolithic t'ower. The monolithfc to~e~annot be climbed, it will withstand winds in excess of 150 miles per hour which we have substantiated by the manufacturer. If we have to get to the top we use a cart. We require 200 amps of service, no other utility. There is no water. We use batteries for backup. The only utility requires telephone and electric power. The question of Exchange if I can and briefly in layma~s terms, and if you require more details we do have with us. But with the base station is we have a central stati~--=. or computer in Garden City, Long Islandthat monitors the signal for Page 10 - APpl. Nos. 4058~and 406~ NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 MR. AJAEB: continued our subscribers. This station here, when someone is driving in the area of Cutchogue, as soon as the signal from the proposed station would be stronger than the signal from the station that the automobile is in at that time, this call will then be automatically be switched by our computer and processeo to this base station. This base station then picks up the call and ~rocesses the call so the immediate area of Cutchogue I can now saysomewhere in the area of three to five miles or possibly eight miles, The ~rocessing of their call would be done by this base stacion in CUtchogue. The building would be alarmed, there would be a fire deterrent system in there especially designed so we would not have any problem with vandalism. If.there are any other questions I would be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN: What does the top of the antenna look like. MR. AJAEB: The top of the antenna is 12' equilateral triangle. Its 12' and 40" high. There would be Two whip antennas that are 10' above that, one below. CHAIRMAN: Is there one around here we could look at. MR. AJAEB: I believe there is. We have a number of them here you could look at. CHAIRMAN: There is one over at Grumann Aircraft in Calverton. Is that a NYNEX or is that a Metro One? MR. AJAEB: That is not a NYNEX. I can give you the dimensions to give you an idea. I t~ 36" at the~base, 18" at the top with the equilateral triangle at the top. IT is designed that way for two reasons, one, it cannot be climbed, we use an electric cart&for th~ wind resistance for the structure. I can provide the Board with some locations if you care to loOk at some. CHAIRMAN: We would like to look at the closest one around here, if we could. MEMBER VILLA: You said the range ~s five to eigqt miles. MR. AJAEB: Depending upon the terrain. Somewhere in that area. MEMBER VILLA: That would mean you have another within five radius miles. MR. AJAEB: Yes, we have stations proposed in Greenport and Shelter Island. If the Board wishes we have some computer runs. Page 11 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 MEMBER VILLA: My concern is how many of these are we going to be looking at all together? MR. AJAEB: I don't think you will anymore from NYNEX Mobile in Cutchogue. The only reason we would have to put more in would be for volume or capacity and we don't anticipate° We would like to see it but it is not anticipated that we would require anymore monopoles in Cutchogue. I can pretty well substantiate that sir, MEMBER VILLA: The thing is are you going to need these every eight miles. MR. AJAEB: I believe this would be out only...I hive to verify that if we have anymore in Southold. I'm not completely familiar with the bounderies of Southotd but Long Island and especially that it is flat, the volume or capacity isn't required so I doubt if there will be more. We can reply to that. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate cost of this project? MR. AJAEB: The cost, are you talking construction costs. The f~-~ building is a quality building that cost about $407000. The monopole is something like $60,000 and then we have a foundation , we have soil tests done and the foundation is predicated on the soil. The big expense to NYNEX is the radio equipmentSand that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. I might mention too that we do monitor this from Garden City seven days a week, 24 hours a day and though it is unmanned, by monitoring i~hich is mandated by the FCC, we guarantee that we stay within our range and we can be sure that there will be no interference with anyone else, any other means of communications. I will also offer at this time for any public or municipal use, if the police require or ambulance squad, we will allow them to use it. We will also take as a condition we have these antennas solely for NYNEX use, we do not rent out tower space to anyone. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. LINDA FLETCHER: May I ask a question. I just wondered do people who now have cellular phones are not able to use them, hear with them, is that correct. They cannot use them, if they have them on in the car. MR. AJAEB: That is correct. It is very spotty. We have one in the company vehicle, very spotty. There is some service but it is very poor. MS. ONGIONI: I'd like to address the Board on one additional point. You requested an illustration of the fall down area of the pole which ~ we have submitted. You also requested the consent of the adjacent property owners to that fall down area. I've submitted to the Board Page 12 - Appl. ~os. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR Vo JUNGE, INC. Hearing Tra script of October 24, 1991 MS. ONGIONI: continued the consent of ARthur Junge who i$ the owner of the site, the lessor to NYNEX. I also have the consent of Joseph Schoenstein who is an adjacent property owner. ! have met with the town attorney and it was brought up to the Town Board on Tuesday and I understand that they are going to be acting on it at its next meeting. However, I do question the appropriateness of the request for the consent of the neighboring property owners. CHAIRMAN: Do you want me to answer that now? Marie, this started, there is nothing we do that is mysterious but this started with wind generating ~owers. Mr. Miller in Laurel had the first wind gnenerating tower in the Town of Southold and of course it dominoed throughout the process. We have had people who have put up all sorts of towers for all .sorts of things and what we more or less wanted them to do is put them in the center of their property and basically, their own fall down area. In this particular cased because you are limited in reference to the size of the piece of property, that is basically the reason why we ask the question, impose that before the hearing because we wanted you to start working on it because We knew you had at least two or three people that you had to talk to, one of which is six people, that's the Town Board so that was basically the reason, MS. ONGIONI: I have a letter which t would like to submit regarding the issue of consent and also the issue of whether those property owners would be restricting the use of their property. I do not believe that it is even legal, constitutional to make that type of request. In that regard I have a submission I would like to make but I only have one copy. This is the letter and this Mr. Schoenstein's consent. You have Mr. Junge's consent. In practicality and I have attached as Exhibit 6 to the memo submitted earlier, a report prepared by an expert in the field which indicates that it is virutally impossible for this monopole to fall down. So the li~!~ood of that happening is minimal at the most. That is Exhibit 6 on the memo. Does the Board have any other questions. We have an application pending before the Planning Board, the site plan we'll do. The site which they refer to is the same site plan that was submitted to this Board earlier this week, I think it is dated October 18~ 1991 showing the fall down area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application, anybody like to speak against it? My only question of the engineer that might be present isis there any difficulty in possibly noise or any type of filtering devices that would be required of this particular unit. The problem with cablevision, the problem with any communication that would be near this particular tower. Pa6e 13 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24~ 1991 PHIL D~RANTE: My name is Phil D~rante. I work for NYNEX Mobile also and I'm a radio frequency engineer. We operate 880 to 894 megahertz which is solely channel frequency the FCC has allocated to us for cellular business. No one else operates in those fre- quencies, just us. You can be rest assured that there will be no interi~erence to any other type of broadcasting station or tv or what have you in the area. CHAIRMAN: Is there any draw from the building at all with blowers running or anything of that nature which would cause anybody a discomfort. PHIL DURANTE: The building that we use is a fire block building, it is virtually soundproof. CHAIRMAN: The system that either heats or air conditions that is a compressor system on the exterior of the building. PHIL DURANTE: It is on the exterior of the building. CHAIRMAN: IT wouldn't be anymore than a normal compressor noise that would come out of an air conditioning compressor that was placed next to a house?· PHIL DURANTE: That i~s ~c.o~r~ect~' ~. CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much sir. Any other further questions? MEMBER VILLA: I'm just looking at your Exhibit 6 here which is the engineering report and it alludes to the fact that the two 8~ diameter microwave dishes were not installed. Is there going to be two 8' diameter microwave dishes? PHIL DURANTE: I saw this for the first time. We're not microwave and we don't intend to use microwave. There are no microwave dishes. I believe the intent of that was that if you put microwave dishes that it increases wind loading factor on the tower. We are not, I repeat, not microwave and we are not going to put any microwave dishes on. CHAIRMAN: Can we strike that from the agreement? I will initial it. PHIL DURANTE: I imagine just determine that if there were microwave dishes it affects the wind loading factor. Page 14 - Appl. Nos. 4058 and 4062 NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNiCATIONS/ARTHUR V, JUNGE, INC. Hearing Transcript of October 24, I991 LINDA KOWALSKI, BOARD ASST: You're referring to Item #3. PHIL DURANTE: Yes. In checking with our real estate people our closest monopole is in Valley Stream, Long Island. However, I think if you want to shorten the trip Rayndex has one in this area which is substantially similiar. CHAIRMAN: That is the one I was referring to since I work in the Brookhaven area. PHIL DURANTE: I don't want to give them a plug. -CH~IPJqAN: Let me just ask you a quick question before you sit down. When you say it is spotty at this particular time where would you be drawing from at this time? Would you be drawing from a Connecticut tower at]~his time or are drawing from one on the south shore. PHIL DURANTE: That is one of the problems we have. Again I can give you in layma~s terms and our engineer would know more details. Our subscribers are getting service or what we refer to as roaming service from SNET and what happens if you are a subscriber roaming charges are more expensive and our subscribers are disappointed that they have to pay the roaming charges. The other thing, Our FCC license requires us at certain times to provide service along the area that we are licensed. Also, the fact that we are a public utility, the Public Service Commission has issued the PCA, their complaints that go to the Commission also saying that I subscribe to NYNEX why should I have to pay roaming charges. So there are a number of factors. Naturally when we were building our system we had to logically do the core site before we came to eastern Long Island. CHAIRMAN: Anything else. No. Bob~ Not hearing any further questions I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until l~ter and we are expecting a determination from the Planning Board and a determination from the Town Board through the attorney. Although we are closing the hearing we are waiting for those two decisions. So there will no decision on this particular application until around the 20th of November and if for any reason it is required for us to reopen the hearing, we will reopen it to take that information and then close it back again. The decision on this particular hearing will then be held up until early December. That's when we will be making a determination. We thank you all from NYNEX for coming tonight. It's been a pleasure meeting you all. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. Page 15 - Appl. No. 4061 EDWARD T. ROUSE Hearing Transcript of October 24, 199I The Hearing opened at 8:18 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey which was produced by Roderick VanTuyl P.C. and revised on August 6, 1965 and copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The nature of this application for the public is basically a division between an existing two story frame .building with habitable space above it which was at one time a deli and a one story frame house. The nonconforming deli at one time is facing Sterling Place an~ the house is ~cing~Champ~i~ Pl~ce~ i~r. Rouse or Sylvia would you 'ike to be heard? NR. ROUSE: ~v name is Ed Rousa. For one past two and a half years I've been trying to sell a piece of property. I consider this a hardship because every time a Iget a buyer they go To the bank anu are turnee down. If 1 can have the line set back as they originally were2 I have affordable property. MEMBER VILLA: You're saying when you have a buyer, you have a buyer for the entire parcel or a buyer for a portion. MR. ROUSE: Everytime I try to sell the entire property, I have people interested in separate pieces but set back. As it is right now many people are not to come up with the money but by setting it back there is a possibility then that it could be sold. MEMBER VILLA: You have heard offers on either one building or the other but not on the entire parcel. MR. ROUSE: I have had offers on the entire parcel but they have not been able to come up with the money. That is the thing sir. I've had both ways but many times that it has come up the entire parcel, the way it was before, I cannot sell it because the bank refuses so by bringing it back I will have affordable housing. CHAIRMAN: I'm looking at a CO, Mr. Rouse~dated September 8, 1989 which indicates nonconforming business, one family dwelling with an accessory frame one car garage with attached storage shed. Is that the entire piece, that's both buildings that CO covers. MR. ROUSE: That is right. Approximately 100 x 100. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question. I uneerstand your situation. I have no problems with dividing the property. I don't know if this Board has a problem with dividing along the existing property lines. Do you have any objection to us ~n some way drawing a line away from the existing building and dividing it just a little differently than that one existing line would come back. Page 16 - Appl. No. 4081 EDWARD T. ROUSE Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 MR. ROUSE: I have nothing against that but I just wanted to know why you would want to do that. CHAIRMAN: The only reason why is because the back of the existing deli, I'm noticing that the line cuts very, very close to the back of that as well as it does to the shed which is attached to the garage. That is the only reason I'm asking that question, i just felt there may be another way that we could deal with it and ask you to deal with it in that way instead of going back to the existing lot line. Just throwing it out as a hypothet.ical. I have no idea how the Board feels. MR. ROUSE: If it has to go ~hat way, I'm willing to do it. CHAIRMAN: As you can-we haven't discussed it amongst ourselves so we will discuss it but I have no objection to dividing it. I understand your situation and probably even in a good market, you would have a problem selling it. ONe may want one and one may want the othe~and they may not want both of them because it is probably a lot of money and I understand the situation. We will do the best we possibly can for you. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard. Any Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ~ ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. Page 17 - Appl. No. 4028 RICHARD AND LISA OLIVER~ ~Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 The Hearing opened at 8:25 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and the application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: The last appeal is in behalf of Richard and Lisa Oliveri. This is a hearing that goes back to June 7 of this past year and we will ask the attorney if there is something he would like to say, STEPHEN HAM: Stephen Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton. First I would like to give you the amended DEC,TRustees Permits and also a copy of the Health Department approval. The Health Department is back to November because the location did not change. If you needthe original, I can get it from the client. This is the DEC. I have the stamp, I guess on the back here. I'd just like to ~ead a brief statement into the record and try to answer any questions that I can. As you know, when this plan was originally submitted in the spring 75' wetland setback was satisfied but only at the expense of side and rearyard requirements. Those neighbors who are affected by our request for side and rearyard requirements objected and my clients agreed to adjoin their hearing to explore alternative sites for their dwelling. We now have a plan that does not require you granting any relief whatsoever for the side and rearyard setbacks. There is a plan that has the approval of all other relevant governmental agencies with jurisdiction to protect wetlands including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Southold Town Trustees and Suffolk County Department of Health Services. From a zoning law point of view this is a classic case of practical difficulties. Here is a building tot with area that exceeds the minimum requirement of 80,000 sq. ft. by some 29%. The proposal is for a modest single family dwelling. The owners have agreed to take steps to mitigate any potentially adverse environmental impact of their project and to improve the wetland by the creation of a pond at t~eir expense and yet there is not a single location on this lot in which a house could be built that conformed to both the side and rearyard setback requirements of Section 100-32 and To the freshwater wetland setback requirement of Section 100-239.4. If the Oliveris could conform they would conform~ but they cannot conform so they are requesting your approval of a plan that takes into consideration both legitimate concerns of neighboring property owners and legitimate environ- mental concerns. Granting the variance will be consistent with the spirit of the Zoning Code and will allow substantial justice to be done. It will result in the use of this property for the purpose intended, single-family residential. tt will not change the character of this largely residential neighborhood and it will produce the minimal relief necessary to enable the owners to use their property consistent with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. MOreover, it will provide the full protection to which the neighboring property owners are entitled under the side and rearyard setback requirements of the Zonging Code. The new site will reduce or eliminate the need to clear some tall trees in the area and while we argue that the.creation of the pond will actually improve what is not considered to be a primary wetland, it is clear that a~ worse there will be no adverse impacts on that wetland or the neighborhood as a whole. For those reasons I urge you to grant the requested relief. Page 18 - Appl. Nee 4928 RICHARD AND LISA OLIVERI Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to state for the record STEPHEN HAM: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak against. EDWARD REALE: My name is Edward Reale of Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelly. I'm here on behalf of Thomas and REgina Pyle who are the neighbors to the north-. of the Oliveris. The Zanghetti family who is the neighbor to the west submitted some opposition to'the application but are unable to be here tonight. The Pyles are concerned with the proposed location of the house. The DEC and the Trustees have agreed to allow the house to be built as close as 39' to the wetlands and to be fair, Mr. Ham and the applicants tried to work somewhat with the neighbors because of the constraints of the property. We had some discussions prior to the prior hearing . We had some prior to this one. We didn't have much time to look at the current application and that is why i think we have to deal with and resolve it tonight. Our main concern is that there is no reason why the house has to be jammed into that northwest corner of the property to the extent that it is right within the 20' setback. As Mr. Nam mentioned, there are some tail trees there that would be knocked out° If you look at the map in front of you is to see the total plot size is somewhat of a hill. The hill continues up to both the Pyle house to the north to the rest to the Zanghetti to the west. That's all treed,as you get closer to the wetlands more open. So the main issue is trying to protect the privacy of those two existing houses without necessarily without eliminating the possibility that Mr. & Mrs. Oliveri can build their home. As a first attempt~ the Pyles would like to see some interest in getting some I mean today they are willing to agree to as well in lieu of the closing application. Bring the house no closer to the wetlands and no closer to the Zanghetti house but site it southward. I've drawn a sketch of that, the proposal that would be acceptable is in red. I caution you it is not a surveyor's drawing but it is a lawyer's drawing° We tried to be as careful as we could, we don't want to put a seal on it. CHAIRMAN: That's pretty good. EDWARD REALE: The concept being that it would be no closer to the wetlands. The DEC and the Trustees said they would accept 39'. I ,wouldn't be as close to the Pyles and you wouldn't have to destroy those trees. You also have to remember if you'r going to construct a foundation you're going to go within the 20'. You have to be able to get around the house along the sides Standard staple measure is usually 10 to 15, even 20' around the foundation to get to it. That's the real protection from the Pyles. If the house is put where it is proposed - the only other plan I make about the map by Ham, that was drawn on the original submission it's not on this. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to make sure you had the current submission. OoK. We're 75' on the current submission from them getting new. Page 19 - Appl. No. 4028 RICHARD AND L~A OLIVERI Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 EDWARD REALE: We're coming closer. What we are talking about is sliding ~t southward. The main purpose is to protect the privacy there. This is an Reo Zone, somewhat of an expectation to have this room around your homes. If it is permitted there a~'the Pyle house it is going to look right into the Oliveri house and vice versa because if you eliminate the trees, there is a pine tree blight problem there that has eliminated some trees, but they're still around in the winter time which has exacerbated the problem. That's essentially what they are looking for here. It would not, I thinks effect the Trustees permit should the DEC have to take another look at it but it is no closer to i~ and ~t wouldn't affect their concept of what they are trying maintain and it wouldn't have any other problems. The Zanghetts have said that they would accept that location as well. I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Ham that this is a classic case of practical difficulties. It is a constraining lot. The applicant you had before you only bought this property a couple of months before the original application. There is no evidence on the record here of what he paid for it or what the deal is or how it came about. That's a case of demonstrating practical difficulties you have to have somewhere to start from. The neighbors has collectively offered and been authorized by the neighbors to offer on the record tonight $50,000 for the property in the interest of protecting it. That is the reputed purchase price. We don't have any record that that is the purchase price but that was the reputed puYchase price. By making an offer I think that negates any allegation of practical difficulty and proof of practical difficulty. There is a real problem with the clearing of trees and I think everyone on the Island knows that this has always been a problem lot, it's mostly wetlands. Mr. Oliveri is a lifelong and he knows the problems. He bought it knowledge of the problems which ~ think also goes to his demonstrating practical difficulties here. That notwithstanding, they would be willing to live with the more central locationthat would not interfere with anyone elses property. CHAIRMAN: I would say to you just for the record that no one has ever made an offer'on a piece of property in the eleven years I have been on this Board an~ that would go to my class that I teach in Stony Brook. I won"t use your name. STEPHEN H/tM: I'd like to address the most outrageous assertion first and that is that if one offers to buy one's piece of property for what he paid for ~t he is not therefore entitled to a variance. As you all know,variances are granted for both economic hardship and practical difficulties. Mr. Reale came in and needed a 5' variance for a deck and I offered to buy his home from him for what he paid for it in maybe 1979, I don't think he would be too pleased and neither would Mr. Oliveri. By the same token, the Oliveris are entitled to the same rights as their predecessor in title would have hadand therefore, the fact that this is a recent purchase is totally irrelevant. Third, I nave been to the site at a time when the house location was staked and that location which was much closer to both Pyle and Zanghetti was in a grove of trees. As I mentioned ~n my Page 20 - Appl. No. 4028 RICHARD AND LISA OLIVERI Hearing Transcript of October 24, 1991 STEPHEN HAM: continued. statement that I read I believe that the need to clear trees will be reduced or perhaps eliminated based upon my recollection of the site, that it was more of a meadow if one went forward and we're talking about 36'. I'm a golfer and a reasonable judge of distances and I think that if anything, it would be saving the trees a benefit of this current plan as opposed to the detriment. As far as moving the location so that Mr. Reale mentioned, I don't know if he said it tonight or mentioned it to me this afternoon, that his proposal calls for a 65' setback from his client's property. I would suggest that Mr. and Mrs. Pyle apply to the Town Board for a change in the zoning requirements they would not even have standing to be here tonight were it not for a wetland requirement and my clients have taken extra time and expense to satisfy the minimum requirements. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Reale, in your original, when you first started to discuss this and you gave us this placement map was this seen by the Zanghettis at all. EDWARD REALE: Not that copy but it was gone over with them. CHAIRMAN: They are familiar with the present submission, the placement of it, 75' from their property~ There is some agreement in reference to the 75'. EDWARD REALE: I confirmed that tonight with their attorney. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments° MEMBER VILLA: I just had a question. Looking at the plot plan, there is two bold lines across the front of the house. I thought one of them was a contour line but maybe I'm wrong. Is that an overhang. STEPHEN HAM: That's a contour line. MEMBER VILLA: But what's the line that goes from - that's the driveway but it goes on the other side too. That's what's confusing. The 39' is to that contour line that's why I question whether its a contour line or part of the house. STEPHEN HAM: The intention is 39' from the edge of the house or any part of the house. CHAIRMAN: It is shown as a deck on the old plan. STEPHEN HAM: So that is a deck, which makes sense because that's where the arrow goes. CHAIRMAN: We thank you gentlemen for your presentations and we will do the best we possibly can in placing this to everybody's liking. Hopefully, we will be able to get these people to construct their house in 1992. Any motion to close the hearing and reserving decision decision. ALL IN'FAVOR. AYE. Theresa Reilly ~-T