HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/29/1992 HEARINGTRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING OF
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1992
Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer
Members: Doyen, Grigonis, Dinizio, Villa
Secretary for ZBA: Linda Kowaiski and approximately 40 persons in
audience.
the
APPEAL $4116
Applicant(s): Linda Taggart
Location of Property: 68320 Main Road, Greenport, NY
County Tax Map No.: 1000-53-2-2
(Map of Peconic Bay Estates Lot Nos.
185 & 186
The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The most recent site plan is dated July 24, 1992.
And, the most recent survey I have as February 20, 1992. And I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Who would like to be heard concerning this?
Mr. Cuddy, how are you tonight?
MR. CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: Fine, thank you. I am Charles Cuddy,
represent Linda Taggart, who is the applicant. First, I would like to
say that you should give us some points for not having to go through
LaColla and this one on the same night.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. CUDDY: Linda Taggart is the owner of a parcel of property, which
you just said was fifteen thousand two hundred eighty-five (15,285)
square feet. On the south or southwest side of the Main Road, as you go
to Greenport, just before a road known as Pipes Neck Road. The parcel
is in the Light Industrial (LI) district. She has owned the parcel for
eight (8) years. Six (6) years in her own name. The Board has I think,
the Chairman indicated a site plan, I have some exhibits that I would
like to hand up, I'll hand up three (3) au a times if I may, and then go
PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.):through them with you in connection with the
applications that we have. We have two separate applications--one is
for an area variance, the second one is for a special exception. And I
would first like to address the area variance. And if I may, I would
hand out three (3) maps and to examine them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I purposely did not open the Special Exception.
MR. CUDDY: But, I just am alluding to it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. CUDDY: I am not dealing with
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. CUDDY:Can I ask that these be give~ out, I have one for everybody.
Maybe I don't, Linde is going to be short. The first map that I handed
you is a tax map of this particular area. This has writing on the top
of it, it says 1000 Southold, which is the district number. And this is
a tax map that shows this lot as Lot ~ 2, it is the second lot in from
Pipes Neck Road. That is the lot that is. in question tonight. One of
the reasons I give you this map is because I wish to show that the lots
in this area are basically either the size of this lot or some of them
smaller. You will note, that No. 1 on the tax map, which is slightly
larger; No. 2, which is ours; No. 15.3, which is North Fork Welding,
which is slightly larger; 17.1 and 18. are either the same size or
smaller; 19.1 and 20 are both small. The second map that I have given
you is a map prepared by VanTuyl, which shows a three hundred (300) foot
radius on the various properties around. I think that reinforces the
point that I am making. It also shows that the zoning for this area, on
this side of the road that is on the south side, is Light Industry
(LI). And on the north side is Limited Business (LB). The third map, I
think shows that more graphically, it shows all of the zoning in an area
approximately a half a mile or more in distance. I would like to
address the question of the area variances. Basically, we are asking
for an area variance for the rear yard. The rear yard as shown on a
map, I believe all of you have from VanTuyl, and it shows that the depth
of the building, on the back building line to the end line of the lot is
forty-seven (47) feet. In the LI district we need seventy (70) feet.
We cannot place our building at any more advantageous site that what we
have, because with fifty (50) feet back, which is the minimum
requirement. We meet the side yard requirements. And we meet
obviously, the front yard requirements. I also Would point out to the
Board that the frontage is probably a little bit bigger than indicated
on the map, because there are two courses in distances, so the course
along the Main Road is about ninety (90) feet. But, at the set back
line, we are more than one hundred (100) feet across, so we also need
that. We are building a nine hundred (900) square foot building, which
is six percent (6%) lot coverage on this lot. And we are asking the
Board, essentially for two variances. We are asking, one that we get
PAGE 3
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.): a sixty-five percent (65%) variance, which is for
forty-seven (47) feet; and two, we are asking for something of greater
consequence, and that is that this lot of fifteen thousand two hundred
and eight-five (15,285) feet be utilized as a separate lot. And the
reason I say that, is, there came a time in 1984 when Linda Taggart,
then known as Linda Schoenstein, purchased this lot with Joseph
Schoenstein. When this lot was purchased, the Schoenstein's also owned
the adjoining lot, which is shown on this 15.3 on the tax map. For a
period of time, twenty-three (23) months, the lots were merged. That
was not known to the Schoenstein's at that time. Subsequently, on
advice of their attorney, they conveyed out that lot, so it is just now
in Linda Shoenstein's name and is has been for the past six (6) years.
And I would hand out to the Chairman two deeds, which I represent ~ our
t~ue copies of the first page of the deed showing the conveyance into
the Schoenstein's and then showing that Linda Shoenstein has owned this~
for the past six (6) years.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who owned the property Mr. Cuddy, prior to...
MR. CUDDY: It is on the top on that deed, I believe, it is Pekunka's,
it is the correct pronunciation. And they conveyed it to the
Schoensteins.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did they own the adjacent property
Schonstein ....
MR. CUDDY: The Schoensteins at that time owned it, Pekunkas did not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. CUDDY: The reason I bring that to the Board's attention is that,
obviously, there could be a merger for a period of time. But
significantly, at the time they bought this property, which is 1984
through 1988 and 1989, the zoning then in-effect was Light Business (LB)
for that area. That is, it was "B" Business. I would only end up in
another series of general things to you, but, I think it is important to
know that when they bought this, the zoning was twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet, and the use was retail use. And that is 'shown in the old
ordinance. And I have obtained copies of the old map and also copy of
the bulk schedule in that map. I would like to hand those up too.
of
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said this.was "B" Light or General Business
"B-I" ?
MR. CUDDY: I am sorry, I probably said "B" Light, because I
thinking .of of something else, but I think it was the "B" Business
district, whatever I handed out...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thirty thousand (30,009) square feet.
was
PAGE 4
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.): "B" Light.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. CUDDY: In the twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, it would have
had more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the necessary coverage.
They also would be getting into something that we are going to talk about
later, would have been in the retail business. The reason I bring this
to you your attention is because at that time I have no doubt, that
without any problem whatsoever, the Board would have permitted them to
have an area of fifteen thousand (15,000) sqnare feet. I find that hard
to believe that because of what I t~nk of an ugly zoning doctrine,
which is a doctrine of merger, that they would have a less situation
today, then they would have then. Because what that does is penalize
the unwary person who purchases a lot, simply by accident, puts it in
one name instead of another name. And that is all that happened here.
That happened for a period of time, which I think is relatively
short--twenty-three (23) months. I am saying to you that what she wants
to do is put a nautical/antique and decorator gift shop of nine hundred
(900) feet on the lot that is fifteen thousand two hundred and
eighty-five (15,285) feet, in an area that has many lots that size. In
an area that is zoned for a much heavier .type of use. In an area that
has immediately across a street from it, a craft shop. And it has in
its vacinity all types of petty uses. I believe that it's appropriate
to ask the Board for the two (2) variances that we are asking for.
One--which is a sixty-five percent (65%) coverage question, which is
forty-seven (47) feet back and two--to give us an area variance based on
the ownership that we've had and obtained; And I would point out to the
Board something else. I think that it is important to know, that what
we are going through is a series of applications. This is a woman who
is investing some time and effort in the Town of Southold. You get a
small antique shop in the Light Industry (LI) Zone, she is going to make
seven (7) separate applications--one for the Zoning Board, the Planning
Board, for the NYS DOT, for the NYS DEC, for Health Dept., she is going
to end up in the Building Department, and she's finally going to end up
before the Building Department and the Planning Board. That is a lot of
applications to put up a small shop and would hope that Southold would
encourage people doing this type of thing. We certsi~ly not asking the
Board do a lot, but I think this minimum request should be granted.
There are other people here, who I know want to talk on behalf of this,
and before they do, I would like to hand up a letter from one of the
adjoining owners, who is Otto Schoenstein.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. CUDDY: I would ask Mr. Chairman that Linda Taggart be heard.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
LINDA TAGGART: Good evening. I would like to introduce myself, I am
PAGE 5
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
LINDA TAGGART (con't.): Linda Taggart. When I bought this property,
way back, it was the intent that eventually in the future I would put a
small shop on tl%at land. But, funds weren't available at that time to
do so. I did operate an antique shop for many years on the lot right
next door to it. And, at that time, I never caused a disturbance in the
Town and, you know, everything went fine. I did leave that area,
because Joe Schoenstein and I had a divorce. And, the property is now
owned by him and his brother, but, in my divorce settlement that
property was a part of my settlement, so that I would be able to have my
antique shop next door, when I could get the funds to put up a small
building. So, at the time when I bought it, I didn't know that all
these problems existed or the merger. I thought that we had taken care
of that years prior. I just wanted you to know that's all I intend to
do was a small little shop, which is very attractive to the area, more
so than an empty overgrown lot that is there now. I will have at least
five (5) parking spaces available. And, at no time did my business
warrant more than that. If it did, there would be more antique shops I
think. But that is all I intend to do. I am going to operate it
myself, I'm not putting a rental in there or anything of that nature.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a one-story building Linda?
MS. TAGGART: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, before you sit down... Do you have
anything else to say?
MS. TAGGART: Pardon me? No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, okay. Before you sit down, does anybody
have any questions of Mrs. Taggart? No, okay. Thank you.
MS. TAGGART: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do sir? Could you kindly state your
name for the record?
MR. FRANK DOBEK: My name is Frank Dobek. And I live about three
hundred (300) feet from the property of Linda's. That property of
Linda's and my proper~y that I have now, which I built a house on in
1959 belonged to the same person. And in 1959 til 1977 my in-laws, which
owned the property, and I raised a garden on that lot. And, it was a
beautiful garden. We had about fifteen (15) different vegetables. The
people used to go by, the people used to go by and take pictures of the
garden. And, now, and now, it is full of weeds. It is overgrown with
weeds, poison ivy, poison oak and included wood ticks. I would like to
have this cleared up. If Linda built this nice little building with a
lawn and shrubbery, it would beautify the whole neighborhood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else? Oh, Mr.
Cuddy?
PAGE 6
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY: I was remiss in not mentioning also that we have to go
before the Trustees. This application has already been sent to the New
York State DEC and the to Town Trustess. And both are considering at
this time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. BRUCE GOLDSMITH: My name is Bruce Goldsmith. And I just like to
go on the record just hoping that Linde can get this use of this
property. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Bruce. Is there anybody who would like
to speak in favor of this application?
MR. FRED SCHOENSTEIN: My name is Fred Schoenstein. My brother and
have the property to the south of Linda's piece of property. We have
the welding shop there. And I would like to say that it would be nice
to see Linde be able to do Something with this piece of property. I have
known her for quite sometime. She is a very hard worker. And I knew
wken she had bought this piece of property with my brother, at the time
when they were together, that her intentions were some day to put a
building on it and sell antiques and whatnot. It is unfortunate that
it's taking this long to be able to do it for her, but, it sure would be
nice to see her able to do this. It is the Main Road, so [ mean, it is
not like it is some side street in a residential community. It is
business property. It's on the Main Road. I couldn't think of a better
place to have something like that. And,'I would like to say with the
economy the way it is, I am sure there will be plenty of masons,
electricians, carpenters willing to jump in there and get some work out
of this. So, it would be nice to see some activity in the neighborhood,
and I wish you all the luck. I hope that you people let her go through
with it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much.
MR. JOSEPH SCHOENSTEIN:I am Joseph Schoenstein and I would like to say
something in reference to this. When Linde and I did buy the property,
we had tried to buy that property prior to that for more space. And I
did want it as an investment, by all means. But earlier when I first
bought the property from Mrs. Pekunka, I couldn't afford anything else
at that time. And, that's the truth. When I first bought the property
from her, I had all to do just to handle that. And, of course to start
to run a business and make a business successful. And, I struggled for
a while, and I, as I started to get my feet on the ground and make a
little bit of money, I went to her to ask her if that pieca of property
was going to be available again. And she had given it to her children
in Connecticut, I believe, and she said no, they are thinking of coming
here possibly some day and 'building on it. And I said, okay I understand
but if you ever want to sell it,-please let me know. I guess it was a
couple of years when she came to me and said that the children in Connecticut
wanted to sell the piece of property and she was offering me
PAGE ?
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN (con't.): first chance on it or a chance to divide
it, if necessary, if I wanted it. And she told me the price she was
asking. And I told her we were very interested and by all means, I
could use the space, absolutely. For the welding business, as an
investment, whatever. I really feel that that doesn,t have a tremendous
bearing on the situation, but I definately wanted to buy the piece of
property as an investment. My wife at the time was Linda and it was her
. money that actually bought it from an inheritance, which, at the time of
the divorce there wasn't a question about the property what so ever. I
mean it was a deal with her and I that she would get the property back.
It was her inheritance that bought it and it worked out for us, but I
did have intentions by all means, I don't want it to be misleading, to
use the property in one way or another, and I want it for storage and I
have stored welding supplies or some equipment, some stuff from a
commericat fishing boats that we have worked on, on the property with
tremendous pain. But that's.., it has gotten to the point where it
hasn't been worth it to use it for that. And, I just hope tO see that
Linda is going to be able to buiId on it. 'It is a business zoned piece
of property. It is on a M~in Road, she didn't know it was going to
change to Light Industrial (LI) or else, we wouldn't had, I wouldn't have
had problems with the welding shop years back, if it was industrial
zoned. At the time it was B1 Zoned or Hgh~ business.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we know you guys pretty well, don't we?
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: Yea, but I wish we had the property. But we don't
and it's hopefully going to go to some good use and it is a clean use,
it is a neat use. I would think it would be in the Town's behalf to
consider it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is really nice of you Joe to come up here and
tell us that, really. Thank you very much.
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? How do you do sir?
Could you state your for the record please.
MR. NICOLETTI: I am Mr. Nicoletti.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
MR. NICOLETTI: My land borders her land by two (2) sides. And, what
I am mainly interested in here is the lot from what I understand isn't a
legal size lot to build. Now, I got a few maps here, that differ from
each other and that is what I am concerned about. Can I approach you
people with it? .
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
PAGE 8
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. NICOLETTI: This map here is one I had made up, this is all my land
in here. This is Joe Schoenstein, this is my piece of land, which is
wetlands. I am only paying..
BOARD SECRETARY: You have to speak loud enough so everybody can hear
you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are referring to Lot # 190. That's yours,
that is what you say is wetlands.
MR. NICOLETTI: That is mine and that is considered wetlands. I am
paying, I'm uaxed on it as wetlands. Their building is suppose to go in
here somewhere, but they don't have the proper clearance from the
wetlands. And then somebody made this map up, it was amended, this map
was amended April 1992 and all of a sudden there is a little dotted line
through here that gives them the clearance to the wetlands.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, that is not the clearance. I have the
same map, okay. That, they are just showing the distance to wetlands.
MR. NICOLETTI: This line here...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is their property line. They are not...
That is your property line, I mean, that is the end of their property
line, okay. And it is forty-seven (47) feet. That is the issue the
attorney was bringing up tonight.
MR. NICOLETTI: But, this is the wetlands here, where this line...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct.
MR. NICOLETTI: Okay, that is what I was concerned about. This line
looked like it was just put in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, the Trustees would ask them what is the
closest wetland and they would., that is what they did basieally.
BOARD SECRETARY: You can't see it on that one, it is not...
MR. NICOLETTI: It's not on this one either.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's not on that one.
MR. NICOLETTI: The
on just to give them..
back to the mike.
fact that I saw amended and I thought that was put
That cares care of that. In addition to, go
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, please.
MR. NICOLETTI: In addition to that sir, we don't know whether she has
a legal deed to this land yet. The Town submitted these to her, a
PAGE 9 =
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA
MR. NICOLETTI (con'tJ): Mr. Kessner, let me show you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Kassner.
MR. NICOLETTI: These things that were suppose to be brought to her,
brought to you people and they haven't received anything yet. In other
words, the land is still under both their names. She isn't suppose to
legally do anything with it, unless she has a deed to the land.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, might I give this gentleman a copy of
the deed that you gave me tonight?
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a copy of the deed. It appears that it
was deeded from Joseph Schoenstein and Linda S. Schoenstein to l,inda S.
Sehoenstein, okay. Of course now she is Linda S. Taggart. Okay. You
are welcomed to take that, I will get anotheb one from the attorney.
MR. NICOLETTI: I don't know, we just.. The Town said they didn't
receive one.
BOARD SECRETARY: The Planning Board doesn't have it yet, but we had it
in our file.
MR. NICOLETTI: Oh, alright. In addition to it not being a legal lot,
the main thing here is we have a lot of neighbors here, it is the
traffic. The traffic is horrendous. That oraft shop that she was
talking about across the street turned out to be a lucrative business.
There's more ears stopping there than we expected. I have a fire plug
in front of my house that is constantly bloeked. We had east bound
traffic pulling right over on the west bound side. And the neighbors in
the area can't get in and out of Pipes Neck, no how, especially on
weekends. And that is, and this, like Linda said she hasn't been there
for a couple of years, we can see the difference without her antique
Shop. The two (2) years of traffic is still bad, but not quite as bad.
And in addition to that, you have people mulling back and forth across
the street. It is just a matter of time before somebody gets killed
there. We live right on that corner, we can hear brakes squealing and
it is probably going to be some young kid. They stop on my side and the
kid bolts across the street and will crash out. And as far as the
parking goes, they have been digging to pull up in her place. I don't
know whether you's ever pulled into that "7-11" here in Southold, you
know that short area, it is very dangerous and that would be similar. I
wanted her to put a driveway on the side of her property and my
property, going out to the Main Road to pull my boat in and out. I
don't dare do it on a weekend. We just can't get in and out of Main Road
and to have cars pulling off her property onto Main Road like that, that
seems pretty dangerous too. But, like I say, the traffic is the main
factor here with the people in the neighborhood.
PAGE l0
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA ?/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see.
MR. NICOLETTI: What is the distance from wetlands? The proper
distance to build?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 239.4. We don't have jurisdiction over wetlands
okay, but from water, okay, on the bay side would be seventy-five (75)
feet.
MR. NICOLETTI: Seventy-five (75) feet.
BOARD SECRETARY: The Trustees are seventy-five feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the Trustees are seventy-five (75) feet.
MR. NICOLETTI: This line that I showed you on there, it wasn't on any
Town maps or anything, this new map, this amended map. I was looking on
the Town maps. I was wondering if that line could be moved another
fifteen (15) back, then I will have a buildable lot. That whole piece
that I own in the back wouldn't be wetlands either.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I can't indicate that, what you would have
to do is bring a topo into the Trustees and ask them. So that they
understood exaetiy what was available' there. You would have to make an
application to the Trustees, because we don't have jurisdiction over
that particular aspect. I am not trying to give you a "cop out" here, I
am just trying to give you that indication. What else can I tell you?
What can we, at this point, put your mind at ease at any one particular
issue here. I understand the traffic on the Main Road is bad. There is
no doubt in my mind. There are opinions, and I am not speaking for my
fellow Board members concerning this particular application. We have
had testimony from one-half of the prior owner. When I say one-half~ I
mean the couple--Mr. Schoenstein, who- indicated that he had stored
equipment on the property. The Light Industrial (LI) use is a much
heavier use than what this lady is applying for. I want to be honest
with you and I don't want you to leave here tonight thinking that we
want to take all your concerns. I don't have, myself, a particular
problem with this application, because it is a lesser intense use. Now,
again, I don't know how my fellow Board members feel, okay. I don't know
what I can do for you in reference to the traffic on the Main Road. I
really don't. The site plan that they have supplied to us appears to be
a fairly adequate site plan. The cars get off the road, they park in
front of the building. I don't do site plans, we are very simply
creating or not creating this particular piece of property, allowing or
not allowing this particular use on this particular piece of property. I
use the phrase it would be unkind of me because it would be unkind of me
to leave you tonight and tell you that I was ready to deny this
application, and I am not ready to deny it. We are going to open the
Special Exception after the culmination of this hearing. And, if you
have any other thoughts, any other concerns that we can interject,
imbody into this particular application, I would be very happy
PAGE I1
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): Mr. Nicoletti, to hear them. And
understand your concerns, I sincerely do. I don't even know if the
craft shop or what you are referring to across the street is even legal,
alright. I really don't. I have no idea what kind of permit they have
to operate it. I don't know if it is pre-existing, I know I've seen it
up there on the weekends, and I have seen cars, you know, stop, and they
stop abruptly because they see it. And then they step abruptly. This
doesn't, and I'm not supporting this, but this does not look like that
kind of operation, okay. At the same time, I do concur with what you
are saying and I concur with the fact that it definately is going to add
some traffic to the area. There is no doubt in my mind, okay. I concur
with you one hundred percent (100%), but as for that, I don't know what
else to say. I am not trying to illicit any information from you, I am
just trying to tell you that I'm not necessarily against it.
MR. NICOLETTI: I appreciate that, it's just that, if it is a buildable
lot, then I... It is alright with me, but the fact that she is asking
for clearance on my side and in the back, that is my property in the
back. And I thought, if I had anything to say about it, I would say no,
because these cars are going to be pulling into her place, they are
going to be pointing right into my back yard. I am right there. I have
a deck in the back, now I'm going to have cars swinging in and out of
there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That can be taken care of through screening,
you would like up to deal with that aspect, I have no problems with that
at all. I just want to...
MR. NICOLETTI: If it comes to that, yes. I would definately want
something like that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to, it brings me back, and no
am I comparing this, but it brings me back to the original application,
we have a funeral home on the Main Road 4n Cutchogue. Well, this Board
agonized for exactly five (5) hours over every tree that was placed
within that site plan. We spent five (5) hours just in placing trees.
I have no problems with that, I will be perfectly honest with you. And
we can embody that into the Special Exception aspects of this
application. And that doesn't mean that I am asking her to go and buy
one hundred and fifty (150) trees either, you know, because that would
be unrealistic, the site is much smaller than that. That is a concern,
that is a legitimate concern that you just brought up, and I can
understand that. Because you have a residence and this is a business,
there is no question on my mind. So, we will open the Special Exception
aspect of it and you continue to think if there is anything else that
your are concerned with...
MR. NICOLETTI: When will that be.
way
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right now. This is only the variance aspect, now
we are going into the Special Exception, whieh is the actual use aspect
PAGE 12
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): of it, okay.
MR. NICOLETTI: Oh, I appreciate your time and we have some more people
who would like to say something.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh sure, let them say it right now, if they
whether they want to wait for the Special Exception, it is entirely up
to you. How do you do ma'am.
like,
NANCY FOGARTY: My name is Nancy Fog'arty and I am on Pipes Neck Road.
And I would just make a suggestion that you come on a Saturday or Sunday
and take a look at the craft shop there and see the amount of traffic
that's there, because it goes practically down to Drossos. And it's
very difficult to get in and out of there on the weekend. And I would
suggest that all the Board members go and take a look at that traffic.
And, if you can say that that's fine, then okay; or come down Pipes Neck
Road and try to get out there on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and see
how difficult it is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Yes
ma'am.
PATRICIA ECKHARDT: I believe, just to clarify it, it's not so much
the moving traffic that we are concerned with, that we have no control
over, but it is the parking on both the east and the west. You cannot
see what is coming in either direction. And there is a "No Passing"
zone between Drossos and the craft shop and that is where the greatest
danger is. I have had to pull my car so the nose is out past the white
Hne in that lane. If they can stop the parking, it may alter the whole
situation.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just have your name for the record ma'am.
PATRICIA ECKHARDT: Patricia Eckhardt. t live on Pipes Neck Road.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I
make a motion... Yes sir? You have something else you would like to
add Mr. Cuddy, go ahead sir.
will
MR. LATSON:My name is Latson, I Hve out on Island View Lane, part of
the Association and I don't... I am President of the Association, but
we just made it and there hasn't been time to get information on this
and to discuss it with people so I don't speak for them. I only speak
for myself and the few people that I've talked to. And we do have, we
do wonder that the ninety (90).day law about having no building within
ninety (90) feet of wetlands.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's seventy-five (75), sir.
PAGE 13'
C HEARING
-CCLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. LATSON: What is ninety (90)?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no idea.
MR. LATSON: Well, the seventy-five (75) feet then, how that can be
forgiven to somebody and not to everybody, unless there is extreme
hardship involved. We all live under our rules and there have to be
exceptions sometimes for hardship reasons, but I don't see that here.
The traffic we know about, that has been spoken of often, and t won't
mention that again. The size of the land, is that not one-acre zoning?
And to build on the, instead of forty thousand (40,000) feet, it is
fifteen thousand (15,000). Why can everybody build on fifteen thousand
(15,000) with a little excuse or reason or a complaint or something. Or
do we have a rule--one acre, and you must have one-acre if you are going
to build. Maybe this is grandfathered in some way, but I don't think
legally it would .... Anyway, that is all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the issue of the seventy-five (75) feet that
you are referring to that I corrected you on, this is approximately
seventy-eight (78) feet from the meadow. Although the meadow happens to
be on Mr. Nicoletti's property. I am not laughing about it, but I mean
it is seventy-eight (78) feet. The edge of the building is
seventy-eight (78) feet from it.
MR. LATSON: I see, I saw it forty-seven (47) feet from..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Forty-seven (47) feet to the back, to the rear
property line. That is your property.
MR. LATSON: That is where the wetlands begins.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that where the wetlands starts, right at the
end of the property. I understand, okay, now.
MR. LATSON: So, it is forty-five (45) feet instead of seventy-five
(75) feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:Yes, forty-seven (47) feet instead of seventy-five
(75) feet. Okay, I understand now. That is what I said to you, not
having a tope, I am referring to Mr. Nicoletti now, not having a tope of
your land, I can't tell you where the wetlands starts, you know what I
am saying?
MR. LATSON: That is a matter for the ....
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Trustees, Town Trustees
MR. LATSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Cuddy?
PAGE 14
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY: I just want to point out to the Board that there is a
certain irony in the complaints from residents because this land is
zoned by this Town as Light Industry (LI). Houses, residences, are
non-conforming uses. They are not permitted uses. These are people
complaining they have a non-conforming use and they essentially don't
want a permitted use in that particular district. That is an unusual
irony, it probably happens very, very seldomly. I would also point out
to the Board that Mr. Nicoletti, who owns two lots, owns them singularly
and separately, has never merged them. And has done the very thing they
talk about the astute, sophisticated buyer doing. He purchased one in
his name and his wife's name, and he purchased the second in his name.
And he holds them that way to date. So, for him to complain about our
lot, that may have merged, when he is holding his [ors so they will not
merge. And holding a small lot is very unsinuating. I offer these two
(2) deeds in evidence to show his holdings.
(TAPE CHANGED)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, just Mr. Nieoletti, I know you want
reflect on that, Mr. Dinizio, I am sorry Mr. Villa just has one quick
question and we will be right back to you, okay. As soon as Mr. Cuddy
sits down, don't lose the answer, airight? Or the question, excuse me.
MEMBER VILLA: Knowing my previous background, you mentioned you
friend at the Health Dept., how are they looking at this lot?
MR. CUDDY: No, I said we have an application. We haven't gotten...
MEMBER VILLA: You haven't gotten there yet, because Article VI, which
went into effect in 1980, that if they were in common ownership, they
would be looked at as one (1) lot and considered an illegal subdivision.
MR. CUDDY: I understand that would be the position of the Health Dept.
would probably take, and we would have to ask them to consider an appeal
and then go through the same process that we are going through now.
BOARD SECRETARY: It is also shown as a separate lot on the County Tax
map too. And I think they give waivers for that. They don't anymore?
They used to. It is on a 1980 County Tax map.
MR. CUDDY: I would point out that continuously this lot has been shown
at all times as a separate tax map, never changing. I just thought of
one other thing, that we have no objection, in fact, it was our
intention to put sereerHng on this lot. I think it would, again use a
word too often, but I think it is correct, it would be an irony to have
this lot be an extension of a welding company, when you could have an
antique shop. It just absolutely wouldn't make sense to me. But,
nevertheless, if we can get approval we intend to screen the side of it,
so there won't be the problem that Mr. Nicoletti and others are
concerned about. Thank you.
to
had a
PAGE 15
PUBLIC. HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Nieoletti?
MR. NICOLETTI: If what the attorney said about that piece of land that
I bought in the back under my name separately. I bought that land
knowing it was wetland and that I could never do anything with it. And
I don't intend doing anything with it. I just bought it because it is a
piece of land, just in case, later on somebody might say you can fill it
in or something. I just bought it for a buffer for myself. I don't
intend doing anything with that land, ever.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir.
MR. NICOLETTI: And then... That is that piece of land, you have got
that. That is all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Hearing no further comment,
make a motion closing the bearing, reserving decision until later.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
All in favor - AYE.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am going to take a short break here, while
move into the next hearing
Lorraine A. ~Her
(Transcribed by tapes recorded on
7/29/92)
PAGE 16
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
APPEAL # 4117SE
Applicant(s): Linde Taggert
Location of Property: 68320 Main Road, Greenport, NY
(Map of Peconic Bay Estates Lot Nos. 185 and 186)
County Tax Map No.: 1000-53-2-2
The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:17 p.m. and Read the
Legal Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The final hearing on the Linde Taggert Special
Exception reads as follows: Upon application, the applicant 4116SE...
The Special Exception, Article VIII, Section 100-131(B) as referenced
from article. That were in the other file and this file and the same
County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area.
And, we will ask Mr. Cuddy if he would like to continue with this
hearing.
MR. CHARLES CUDDY:Yes, I again appear for the applicant, Linda Taggert.
Basically I think the argument of the applicant here is' that the use as
the Chairman indicated is much less intense. The property that Mr.
Nicoletti owns is residence, The property that is to the west of the
Taggert property, is a welding operation. It would appear, I would think
to everybody's benefit, to have not the welding in Mr. Nieoletti's back
yard, but to have an antique shop. I think if you look at the Zoning
Code and in particular, also the Zoning map, that the Code to start with,
that in the LI district going back to the LIO district and going back to
the General Business District, which is the way the Code is written,
that there can be sale of marine equipment, there can be sale of boats,
you can have contractor's yards--plumbing, electrical, lighting
contractors. You can do things that are much more intense and yet are
the same coneeptuai type of thing, that is the selling of goods. If you
can sell heavier goods, you certainly must be able to sell lighter goods
in the same district. And I would point out again that the earlier Code,
the one that was enforced when she bought this lot, was in force until
'89, says that in the Light Business District, you can essentially do all
the types of things that she is doing, you can essentially have a retail
type of use. And, we believe that it is an appropriate use at this spot.
We believe that the area is zoned for this and for other similar uses.
If you note, on the north side of the road, it is an LB District or
Limited Business District. If you note further down, there is an
existing motel that has ali sorts of operations incidental to the retail
type sales there. I believe that it is appropriate, I believe under the
Code, that I am going to hand. up, the old Code. But under both the old
and the new Code that this was an intended use at this particular site.
Now, I will hand up to you again a copy of the old Light Business
District which was in effect until just two and one-half (2 1/2) years
ago. The other thing I would ask the Chairman, I believe it is part of
PAGE 17
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.): file, but if it is not, I would make it part of
the file and that is the response that was made to Mr. Orlowski, the
Chariman of the Planning Board's inquiry by Mr. Lessard, who is the
Building Inspector that the proposed use is a committed use within the
Special Exception authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals. And that
letter, although it is not dated, was sometime in June because it
replied to a Planning Board member, when June, I believed was received,
during the month of June. So, it is a June 1992 memo. Do you have that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have it in the file. My only comment to
Mr. Cuddy is that ff we are successful in mustering three (3) votes on
this Board, this special permit is, although it goes along with the
land, is for that lesser use. So, any intensive use over and above what
is granted by this special permit would mean that any future owners or
any other use that Mrs. Taggert was intending to use this property for
would then have to come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
you
MR. CUDDY: I understand. I also would put on the record that this is
one use by one user. It is not our intention to rent it or divide the
building er use it for any other purpose.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like
to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against
the application. Yes ma'am. How do you do?
ANNA PEKUNKA: My name is Anna Pekunka and we sold the property to Joey
and Linde. And we sold it with the understanding that that property was
going to be used, he was going to use it for his machines there, nothing
about any buildings see. And, this part that she says that we intended
to build there, that is not so. When he bought this property from me, I
am going to face you, I am talking Joey, that you said you wanted to put
like extra parts that you had, had no room to put it there, right? But
nothing about a building, right? RIGHT or wrong? Joey, .answer me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, Mrs .....
MS. PEKUNKA: You said there was going to be no building, it was going
to be just for parts. I just want to ask you to answer. He was going to
answer it. So, anyway, besides that, that road there, there is a lot of
traffic right now, because a couple, not a couple, but'a few years back
my son and my brother-in-law were coming home from playing golf and they
stopped to make a left turn. They couldn't get across, the got hit in
the back. My daughter was coming from Greenport with the two children
and she stopped, she got pushed way over in Nicoletti's yard. The other
man landed up into Rempe's yard, which used to be a vegetable stand there
right? So that.., now with this small business going up, which she
wants to put there, I don't know how we are going to get across. When I
want to go to Southold, I have to go to Greenport turn around and come
back again. I can't get out. You can't see over the ears. And my car
is a smaller ear. It's just, I don't know what we are going to do. So
please take that into consideration, because I hate to see somebody get
PAGE 18
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MS. PEKUNKA (eon't.): killed there. Thank you sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes sir?
MIKE PEKUNKA: My name is Mike Pekunka. I am a resident of Pipes Neck
Road. ~While I think that Miss Taggart's efforts to start a new business
are very commendable, I think the situation right now, on the corner of
Pipes Neck Road and Houte 25 is a serious traffic situation. And that
the Basket Boutique on' the north side of the road, there are cars they
park right up on the shoulder of the road. Not on the side of the
shoulder, but right up to the line. And they don't park twenty or
twenty-five (20 or 25) feet from the corner, they park right up to the
corner. Okay? And I think the addition of another business right in
that same area is going to compound problem of traffic and parking,
okay. Now, I certainly believe that if Ms. Taggart starts a business, I
don't th~k she is going to ask people when she has a full driveway of
cars, would you please go drive around the block and come back and have
parking spaces. Those people are going to be parking right up on the
side of the road. I think you are going to have a dangerous traffic
situation that one day might lead to a tragedy. I was rear ended there,
I have had a sister almost rear ended. I don't want to see somebody
hurt or killed, it could happen. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Anybody else Like to speak? Joey
you have a question, a statement you want to make?
MS. REMPE: I won't get in front of the microphone.
talk. My grandson, Freddie Rempe, was riding a bike,
up on Mrs. Nicoletti's lawn.
I would like to
he got cornered
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just have your name for the record ma'am?
MS. REMPE: Rempe. Eleanor Rempe.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Joe.
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: I would like to just respond to something that was
said tonight about.the property. It is true, I was looking for property
absolutely. I needed the space desparately. We were able to buy a
piece of property in a rear yard, which you guys know about, that gave us
much more easable access to and use. And, that was after buying the
piece of property from Mr. & Mrs. Pekunka. It was after, we came up, we
were able to buy it and it is much more useful and much safer. And,
another thing is I have tried to use that piece of property before Linda
and I divorced, but between the DEC and the Police and the problems, I
didn't think it was worth the anger with my neighbors over using it
commercially. Okay, which I did try and to do that. And, it has been
sitting there idle, basically, except for a few things that have been
stored on it. I will say something. I don't think that, what Linda
wants to do here is going to create a major traffic problem, because of
the parking facilities. She was my wife, she did have an antique shop.
PAGE 19
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN (con't.): And I used to watch, because I used to be
there every Saturday working while she had her shop. And antique shop
does not attrack the people that a craft shop does. It just doesn't.
There's a certain people that go to antique shops. Craft shops attraek
everybody. It's gifts for' everyone, it's, everyone has Httle doodads
in their houses, in baskets, and so on and so forth. An antique shop is
really more of a specific item. And that is all I would like to say.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thsnk you Joe. Mr. Nicoletti?
MR. NICOLETTI: I'm interest with what Joe said about it, being an
antique shop. We have one, an antique shop, just about a mile down the
road. What this is going to cause is people walking across the streets
a lot. They will stop at the craft shop, they stop mulling across... I
saw it when she had it.. That's when my wife heard a lot of brakes
squealling. Because she has people going up and back across this Main
Road. Another thing about Joe, a thought in my~ head, the DEC was given
trouble with that piece of land, it was because he dumped something like
eight (8) truck loads of dirt on the wetland in back. I complained
about it and they made him scoop it out. And he put right along my
property because he knew I complained, ten (10) foot high, one hundred
and twenty-five (125) foot long of dirt that the DEC made him take off
the wetlands, ~vhieh is my property. He dumped about eight or nine (8 or
9) truck loads of dirt there. Because I complained, that is what
started this feud, I guess, against him and he deliberately put it along
my property. And everybody knew this was going to get my hax up. But
that is why he had trouble with the DEC with that piece of property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that dirt still there?
MR. NICOLETTI: No, no, he had it taken out. The dirt, he just scraped
it out level with Linda Taggart's land now. That dumped down real Iow,
the water used to always come in there, just on the moon tide. Now, it's
scraped off, you have all backfill in there, that is not clear fill. It
is big chunks of cement and everything.
MRS. NICOLETTI: You know, I don't think that is very nice of
laughing like that. You did that the last time to us too. I am sorry
sir.
you
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am watching your husband, I am sorry Mrs.
Nicoletti, I didn't see him.
MR. NICOLETTI: That is all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it becomes counterproductive..
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN: It is a shame. I realize that. It is a shame
that this has to happen. I never meant any harm, I never tried to cause
trouble. When we built our building, we dug out all the material and
PAGE gO
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. J. SCHOENSTEIN (con't.): put it on that piece of property. I got
in trouble because I definately made a mistake, I had Terry Latham put
it right in the middle of the piece of property. But it was too close
to wetlands. Terry picked it up and moved it over within... The DEC
came there, you know the local guys came down, the police guys, they
staked it out and they said to me you got to be so many feet. We stored
the fill there, and we put it right back where it was suppose to go when
the building was done.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
statements to be made Mr. Cuddy?
Alright, is there any further
MR. CUDDY: To some extent, I think we may be loosing track of the
special permit application. The special permit application is to comply
with certain standards as forth in the Code. And, I think this one does
for all of the obvious reason that we have been talking about; that is,
the type of district that this is, the fact that is not going to change
the district, the fact that the type of uses that are near by are very
similar to this. And I wish to point out, and I don't think that we,
and I am talking about Linde Taggart, should be the bane of their
existence, because there is traffic on the Main Road. They live on the
Main Road, they live in a Light Industrial (LI) District. That district
on the map that I gave you called Taggert LI Zone shows that it goes
over a half a mile to the east of this. On the other side of the road,
the limited business goes the same distance. They're in a business
district, they are on the Main Road. And for them to ask us to cure
that, I think is real wrong. All we are saying to you, is that we are
going to have off street parking on our parcel. We can't cure the craft
shop across the street, we can't cure the problems that are on the Main
Road. We can do everything that the State asks us to do, everything the
Town asks us to do as far as taking care of our own property and propose
to do that. I really don't believe, and I think it goes a long way to
be imagining it to say that an antique shop with nine hundred (900)
square feet, is going To cause enormous traffic problems on the road.
If it's there, it's already there, we are not going to contribute that
much additional to it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion
closing this hearing, you have a question?
MEMBER VILLA: Yes. I have comments. And I would like to preface what
I am saying, I like to go into antiquing. My wife and I go to auctions
[ am a craft person and what have you. But I have problems with this on
the basis that I don't think the code allows wholesale and retail sales,
other than for boats and boat repairs in the LI zone. And I think what
we're, what you really should be doing is looking for a change of zone
to Light Business, if that is what you are looking for, because as you
just said, the LI zone goes for a half a mile and if we grant this, even
though it sounds like it is a limited us'e and a lesser use, it just
opens the door for the next application, and the next application, and
we are going to have a strip zone, going for that whole mile with
PAGE 21
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MEMBER VILLA (con't.): retail sales. And I jus~ don't think that is
what the Code entails. I wasn't on the Board years ago when these
gentlemen evidentally came to you when they were zn the business zone
looking for an industrial zone. And, it was granted. And under the
current Master Plan, they recognized that and they made it a Light
Industrial zone. And, now, I think what you are looking for is to go
back to a business zone with retail sales and I think we are just going
to have a strip mall from there to Greenport. I don't like to be the
bad guy, but I think that is what is going to happen.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Taggart.
MR. TAGGART: To the Board, I was under the impression that Light
Industrial means that if I wanted to run a grinding shop, metal
fabricator, blacksmith shop, I could. I would draw people, if I was a
blacksmith. People would come in, I would do the work and they would go
back. The whole purpose of me coming to you is not to create this, which
to me, if I was you and you lived next door to me, if I had a blacksmith
shop where I was pounding metal all day, I don't think you would be too
happy with it. This, a Light Business, a retail store is not going to
cause you any problems. If you look at this site plan and, our building
plan is a very nice looking building. It is not a junk looking square
cement building. It is a nice looking building. There is going to be
no noise. There will be traffic, yes, but we are not all the problem.
You have other businesses that are going to be applying too. I would
would join with you. It is a State Road, I think our problem is to talk
to the State. The State would govern the speed limit there and maybe,
there is a possibility, maybe the State can lower it, I don't know. If
there is a petition for it, Linda and I would be glad to sign it with
you. We don't want to see anybody hurt either. We are good people.
Thank you.
MEMBER VILLA: Just to answer you. I recognize that and as I say,
don't like to be the bad guy in this whole situation. But, whatever
this Board does in this application, they have to be consistent, they
have to do with others. And, then, if this then goes all the way for a
half a mile to the east, we got a strip mall offering retail sales.
MR. TAGGART: Again, I say to you, if it is better, why would you
object to it.
MEMBER VILLA: No, it is not better, I mean. The people that live
this letted business on one side and industrial on the other hoping that
it would be a lesser use.
to
MR. TAGGART: Again, these are residential people. I am asking you as
my neighbor now, would you rather me have a light industrial banging
business, grinding noise; or would you rather have a nice retail store?
MEMBER VILLA: That is not the question here, although. The question
is what kind ....
PAGE 22
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. TAGGART: I am sorry, maybe I don't understand, okay...
MR. CUDDY: I always take issue when somebody says that the Zoning Board
by one decision sets a precedent in another decision. Excuse me a
second. There is a case in the Court of Appeals, the Cowan Case, that
says specifically that a zoning board does not each time has a decision
set a precedent for something that is similar. And that is what you are
saying. But, I think more particularly to address what you are asking
here is that maybe you can tell me, because it is my opinion in looking
at the Cod~ that you can have a plumbing business here, contracting,
that you can have people come to that contractor's yard, I'm thinking of
Blackman in Riverhead, doing a contractor's yard in this site, the Light
Industry site, and having people come in and purchase. I believe that
can be done. If that can be done, having an antique shop with a few
people coming in, certainly has to be included within the realm of
that. And., I believe absolutely that that can be done, there should be
no question. I believe that What we are asking for is something very
similar to what could be there. You could have a long distance of that,
that is true, hut. I believe those are the things that are allowed in
this particular district. That is why we are here saying what I am
saying. But, I take issue with it that you could not do the type of
thing that is here. The Building Inspector, by the way, sent a memo
believing that also you could do this. So, and I think that he is
correct because of the reason I just gave you.
MEMBER VILLA: Well, we had an internal discussion upon that.
MR. CUDDY: I can understand.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That internal discussion has now changed
whole possibilities of the realm of which we are dealing with these
applications when they come in in reference To an interpretation or an
opinion. I have told that To the Code Committee of the Legislative
Committee also.
the
Mt{. CUDDY: I do wish to assert vigorously that I believe the type of
use that she is asking for is a use that is contemplated by that section
of the code basically by going back into other sections. You can do the
very same thing.
MEMBER VILLA: You are the lawyer, I am not a lawyer, but when you
at Section 8 under B, where is says wholesale and retail sales and
repair of boats and marine items. It is very explicit that the
wholesale that the wholesale and retail sales only applies to the repair
of boats and marine items. And, it is my contention that if they wanted
wholesale and retail, they would have left it in for the whole section
and not been explicit with just for boats and marine supplies.
look
MR. CUDDY: One of the problems with zoning codes is that they can't be
exhausted, I think we both agree. You could start listening and never
end listening. But I think within an area, you are talking about what
PAGE 23
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.): can be done. And I am saying the very type
thing that you are talking. Whether you are selling marine goods or you
selling plumbing goods or electrical goods, it is very s~milar to what
she is talking about. If you can do that, you can do this. That is
essentially our argument. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions again, I
motion closing the hearing on this Special Exception reserving the right
to make a decision in the future.
make a
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
All in favor - AYE.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much for coming in everyone.
And we thank you for your courtesy and we will do the best we possibly
can. There certainly will be no decision tonight. We have at least two
(2) more hearings after this. Thank you again, safe home.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 7/29/92.)
PAGE 24
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
APPEAL # 4118
Applicant(s): Gladys J. Milne
Location of Property: 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion, NY
County Tax Map No.: 1000-37-5-15
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of the survey,
actually it is the whole survey, dated December 23, 1989, updated or
amended on April 4, 1990, and then again on May 7, 1990 indicating this
somewhat pie-shaped parcel, which there is an existing one and half
story frame house. The nature of the application is a deck with steps
to the bulkhead on approximately the west side of the house. And I have
a copy of the Suffolk County tax map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Is there anybody here who would like to speak
in behalf of this application? Mrs. Mi]ne.
GLADYS MILNE: I'm Gladys Milne.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is is Milne, I apologize.
the mike.
Could I ask you to use
MS. MILNE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is very rare that we receive an application
that requires almost a zero line or building constructing almost on the
property line. Could you explain to us why you want to do th,at?
MS. MILNE: If I had more room, believe me, it would be good. I am on
a sloped plot and I just felt if I could level it off with a deck, it
would be more or less ground level. I could put a chair, table and
maybe enjoy it, get something out of it. Right now, it is useless.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I was there, I think you were insta]Hng a
new cesspool at the time?
MS. MILNE: Not I.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, okay. Two houses down, so I missed it,
didn't go to the right, so I will have to come over this weekend and
take a look at it again.
so I
MS. MILNE: Somebody was here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRONGER: Two houses to the ....
PAGE 25
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
It is to the south, you were in the west side of that Knoll Circle,
this would be to the south.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I want to go more to the south, okay.
MS. MILNE: The head of the Knoll Circle.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually, at ~he head end, alright.
MS. MILNE: There isn't a lot of room, I .wish there was, I wish I had
more property. Just as I say, to give us someplace to go outside and
sit, where it is level. Grey house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was Sunday morning and it was relatively early
When I was there, so I didn't bother anybody, okay.
MS. MILNE: Well, We get up pretty early, anytime ....
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll stop over Saturday morning, probably around
8:00 a.m. or so, you don't have to get up though, you know, just know
that I will be there.
MS. MILNE: That will be fine, I don't know what else I can tell you.
It's really, to me, no big deal, other than to put a table and chairs
out there. We have a brick patio forward a little bit.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the one that is indicated as patio.
MS. MILNE: Yes, and that is kind of even collapsing and fall~ug and
the dirt is not staying. That is why I felt that wood perhaps would be
more permanent. It is very difficult to get dirt, you have to shovel it
from one end of the property to the other.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, the portion of it that you are anticipating
to be wood, is the portion directly adjacent to the house. Is that
correct?.
MS. MILNE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The brick one is going to stay brick.
MS. MILNE: No, we are just going to go over it..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: YOU are going to go over the top of the bricks.
MS. MILNE: Right over the brick because that is kind of falllug in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MS. MILNE: It will be over the brick and that is the side between the
two homes.
PAGE 26
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. The path that is shown on
side side of the house, is that a path for the houses in the back?
has the right-of-way over that?
the opposite
Who
MS. MILNE: It is path for all of the people in Gardeners Bay Estates
to go the beach. It is a ten (10) foot right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Alright. Because the
the Board is that of having acces's ag~{n to your
yard area, but since you have the path over there.
first initial concern of
basically your rear
MS. MILNE: Oh, yea, we have room on the other side of the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. I have to admit on the record, I have more
trouble finding the houses in Gardeners Bay Estates. What I usually do,
is go over to Warren Sanbach's, but it was too eariy thai time.
MS. MILNE: Well, go down Old Orchard LanE...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no.
'to the wrong house.
I know how to get there, because I was
MS. MILNE: You know now? Okay.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is absolutely baffling because the road,
some of the them are in the same name. I just stop a~ Warren's house
and ask him all the time. I say "Warren, can you give me better
directions".
MS. MILNE: Well, we usually tell people to go down Old Orchard Lane.
I tell them six houses for a right and a left, and then get there. And
it works out pretty well.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let us see if there are any other questions.
Does any, Bob do you have questions of this lady.
MEMBER VILLA: No, I was there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything you would like to add for the record?
No?
MEMBER VILLA: No, except as you say, lit goes right up to the property
line.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim, do you have any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, other than it is a small lot and you know, it's,
as long as it is .like somewhat to ground level, I don't know what would..
MS. MILNE: I don't want it in the air, I want it as close to the grass
as we can put it, easily to build.. I just want a little place to put
PAGE 27
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MS. MILNE (eon't.): a table and chairs.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you put concrete there, you would have the
same problem. It would just slide off.
MS. MILNE: If we put concrete, we have, I have to build a retaining
wall.
MEMBER DINIZIO: To build it up.
MS. MILNE: Yea, and I think that would maybe be more difficult.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I agree.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I will come back and, I won't discuss it
with you, but I will take a look at it.
MS. MILNE: I don't want to change too milch, really, just sort of level
the thing so we can use it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And, your neighbor on that side of the bulkhead?
MS. MILNE: I just saw him the other night and the one on the other
side and he didn't mind at all. Both of them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Yes?
MR. ED BIRDIE:I am Ed Birdie, I live in Gardener's Bay Estates behind
Warren. Warren is at the eireus tonight, that is why he is not here. I
am President of the Association and I speak for the Assoeiation. And we
have no problem with the deck with regard to the right of way whieh is
the Association's property, which is next to Mrs. Milne.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good, thank you so much sir. I
about the mix up, I apologize really. Next time, I will go at 10:00 and
I will get Warren up...
am sorry
MR. BIRDIE: It is to the right of the right of way, it is the house on
the right of the right of way.
MEMBER VILLA: Jerry, just one thing.. You were waiting for something
from DEC, did you hear anything from them.
MS. MILNE: I had to send them more information. Three copies of a
plan and a photograph, that it was still a functioning bulkhead, and how
to get there, a road map. So, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we have had an application before the DEC
for the last one hundred and twenty (120) days in Mattituck for the
Mattituck Park District and still have had no activity on it, so, I
don't know how long you will hear either.
PAGE 28
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MS. MILNE: They sent me to send more information, but other than that..
I think maybe if I live long enough, maybe I will get it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in
favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the
application? Questions from Board members? ~Ve will make a motion
closing the hearing, reserving my right to go back and reinspeet and we
thank you both for coming down. We will have a decision for you
probably within two to three weeks.
MS. MILNE: Thank you, see you soon.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
All in favor ~ AYE.
End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 7/29/92)
PAGE 29
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
APPEAL # 4115
Applicant(s): Stephen and Ella Schmidt
Location of Property: 340 Bay Haven Lane, Southold, NY
County Tax Map. ~No.: 1000-88-4-24.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ...indicating this one-story frame home and its
approximate placement in the center of the property, a little bit closer
to the rear yard, then it is the front yard. And, I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map this property and surround properties in the area
and showing the deck as it appears. Is there somebody who would like to
be heard? How do you do, Mrs. Sehmidt? How do you do. Is there
anytking you would like to add for the record?
MRS. ELLA SCHMIDT: Not really, I just want to say before anything else
that we have a dog warning. It is a big dog around, that be's my
daughter, and she hasn't been able to use the backyard at all. That is
what we are doing it for.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody who would like... Any objection
against this? Anyone like to question Mrs. Sehmit about? Bob, do you
have any questions? No. Anybody? This deck is to remain, unroofed,
right? There will be no roof over it.
MRS. SCHMIDT: No roof.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is there anybody else who would
speak in favor of the application? Anybody Hke to speak against the
application? Hearing no further questions; I make a motion closing the
hearing, reserving decision until later.
like to
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
All in favor - AYE.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We hope to have a decision for you shortly. Thank
you very much.
End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 7/29/92)
PAGE 30
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
APPEAL ~ 4023 AND 4022SE
Applicant(s): Cellular Telephone Co. d/b/a Metro One
Location of Property: (415) westerly side of EHjah's Lane and northerly
side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY
County Tax Map No.: 1000-108-4-part of 11.
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and application for the record.
Member Dinizio left room for this hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Smith do you trave any objection if I open both
hearings at the same time. I know you want to address the issue of one
particular hearing.
MR. ALLAN SMITH, ESQ.: I do not mind Mr. Goehringer, as long as you
allow me to reserve the points made in my correspondence to you, that we
have a standing objections to the opening of the Special Exception. We
believe that that has been resolved and was finalized between the
parties.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you. We have a copy of a new
plan that we have just received on July 27, 1992 indicating the major
concerns of the Board through the prior hearing process and. they are
still indicated and after a discussion with attorney Bill Moore, they
shall remain and have remain, thank God. And I have a copy of the
SuffoLk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. We are all set Mr. Smith, I apoligize for the timely that
it took to read the Legal Notice.
site
MR. SMITH: Thank you Mr. Goehringer, thank you To the Board for
opportunity to again appear before you. As a preliminary matter, I have
reduced ~the testimony of the professional that is involved in the height
issue to writing. And, I will submit his testimony and he will also
speak. Additionally from a previous hearing, you had before you Mr.
Papay, who is the structural engineer, although I do not intend to have
him add to the testimony that he has previously made in this matter
should, in the context of the height consideration, an issue arise with
reference to structural safety Of the tower, he can step forward and
answer those questions. I will pass up his resume and Mr. Scott Fox's
testimony.
the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. (Mr. Smith hands up papers.)
fine. You owe me one more. Oh, we do have it, I apologize.
Six is
MR. SMITH: Mr. Goehringer, I would renew the motion, if you will, that
is contained in various correspondence that I have sent to you over the
PAGE 3I
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. SMITH (con't.): past several months. That in fact, in that this
is a radio tower, as has been defined by the judgment between the
parties, which is now pliant as between us. That the exemption
contained in your code for heights of such structures makes the hearing
on a might inappropriate for this evening. In support of that, I will
file with the Board several documents. One is the certification of Mr.
William Moore reiating to a record of the Southold Town Planning Board
relative to the review of the NYNEX tower that was built up by the dump,
wherein, you will see the following language: "height of the tower
exempt from the variance under Section 100-230(d) of the Code of the
Town of Southold", which is the section I h~ve cited to you in several
pieces of correspondence. Secondarily, I will offer to you a certified
copy of the fins] judgment as between the parties, which in its findings
defines this particular tower as a radio tower, which is the language
used in that particular section. Additionally, I would offer copies of
the action of the Board with reference to the NYNEX Mobile, excuse me,
NYNEX Mobile Communications application with Arthur V. Junge, Inc.,
which additionally reinforces the position that the hearing this evening
is unncessary and inappropriate. (Hands up documents). Is the Board
prepared to make a ruling as to whether or not this particular code
section has absolute power?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I have had a discussion, well, firstly, let
us go back to square one and just discuss the situation entirely. And I
do feel badly, okay, and I know Mr. Baxter is here and I have known Mr.
Baxter, in fact I was fighting a fire on his property and I had seen him
this past him this past summer, being a member of the Mattituck Fire
Department. Originally, this application ~came before us and we were
processing the application as if we were going to approve the
application. The main concern of the Board was that, we no longer had a
more intensive business use, we now had a lesser intensive business use,
as of the new inception of the new Code in 1989. And that's were the
concern came to be. I am going into this issue. Now, from that
particular point on, there was litigation. The Town lost the litigation.
We are at this parti~niar point now dealing with a reaffirmation so to
speak. When I had a discussion with Mr. Moore on the telephone
approximately a week or so ago, he asked me the reason for the Special
Exception, I'll get into the height in a' minute, okay. And, I told him
at that particular time that we would like to incorporate everything,
get it all nicely done, packed up and dealt with so that we know exactly
what we are dealing with at this particular time. And that is my
particular feeling on the whole situation. In reference to the height,
I had a discussion with him on the phone,, and it is the same discussion
and I bring that to the record that one of the major concerns and you
did a very superlative job in presenting this application the first time
around. And I did feel very badly about ruling against it, okay. And
you indicated the need for fire and emergency services over this
telephone system. And, I realize that it's of extreme importance in the
rural area that we live in. At the time same time, being a fireman in
the Town of Mattituck or the Hamlet of Mattituck for some twenty-four
PAGE 32
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): (24) years, I have also gene to many
plane crashes of planes that have never made it to or from Mattituck.
It is not a landing field, it is not an, whatever you want to call the
airport so to speak which is, and that is what our immediate concern
is. I did mention that to Mr. Moore. So, not withstanding the fact of
our opinions concerning should we be here or shouldn't we be here
tonight, we're here to complete the process. I am not here to rule
against this, I am not here to put stumbling blocks in the way of this
particular situation. The fall down area is there, we don't have to
drive to Laurelton to see the antenna, because I assume it is similar to
the one that NYNEX has constructed and so on and so forth. We are
merely here to ask two or three questions and deal with that, I am in
any case, I have no idea on how the rest of the Board, so I can't answer
that question at this point.
MR. SMITH: As long as I reserve my rights, I' am ready to go forward.
Our position is that the height issue was exempted by your Code and you
respectfully disagree, that's what makes ho~se races. So let us go on.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that answer your question? I didn't want .to
be in a round about matter in this situation.
MR. SMITH: I have answers for the questions that you have raised and I
intend to share them. Going forward, I would like. with the permission
of the Board to incorporate the testimony of the prior proceedings into
this proceeding.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem.
MR. SMITH: I have provided you with a certified copy of the Order. I
should offer, although I sent down to you by hand, the drawings S1 and
S9. that came to evidence to this hearing. Lastly, I would share with
you the FEA detern~dnation, which was an open issue last year and has
since been decided. I guess that while 'I am introducing things, the
other thing that I would put in and I am not sure I put it in this
stack, but I WIll get it for you. We do have a letter at this time from
the Mattituck Fire Department confirming the advice that I gave you in
the earlier hearing relative to the telemetry of the head, I guess it is
the head of rescue.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the ambulance.
MR. SMITH: And ambulances. Last time I did this verbally,
put it in writing.
this time I
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had discussed that issue with the Chief, who at
that time was Norm Reilly and he had indicated me, of course, we have a
new chief, chief George Lessard and he had indicated to me that since
the construction of the antenna at the Highway Dept, the Fire Department
has not had a problem with transmission.
PAGE 33
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. SMITH: The experience that has occurred, although I am not
witness, I am a volunteer, the experiences that have occurred and one we
have needed the eeliuar services have been on those occasions of having
to establish a command center, such as for' the brush fires over on
Riverhead-Moriches Road for the Eastport Fire House and/or with
reference to those, volunteer ambulance services that provide a AEMT
services and they need the telementry all for the EKGs through the
County system out to I believe it is South Side or Mather, where they get
obstruction on desHng with heart patients. With that being said, I
will introduce you to Mr. Scott Fox, as you can tell from Mr. Fox's
resume, he is the chief of engineering and can explain to you the issue
of height as it relates to this type of a service. Mr. Fox would you
explain to these folks how this works, why it has to be the height it
has to be.
MR. SCOTT FOX: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board,
just in very simplistic and to start the discussion I wanted to just
reiterate, I know it has been on some of the prior record, hut just in
very simple terms, celluar telephone .is based on a radio technology. It
is very much radio based. Radio waves at the frequency that we are
talking about travel line of sight. In our business, unlike many other
businesses, we, the optimal height of the antenna is critical to the
success of this system. And by optimal I don't mean the higher the
better. In our case, we need to be at a certain height, that is high
enough to provide coverage of the community, yet not too high so as to
cause unwanted coverage, which we would refer to as interferrence into
adjacent communities. Basically, celiuar again works on the premise, I
think you probably heard the term in previous testimony of frequency
reuse, where' cells sitting right next to one another use different
frequencies, and maybe the next cell over uses yet another frequency.
And the next one uses that same frequency again. So basically, again
height is a critical requirement for' the proper design of the celtuar
system. In our case, I am very, very much familiar with this case, the
design criteria is to provide what we call overlap with the adjacent
cell which is the Peconic cell site. We also refer to this as Southold
Cell Site. to the northeast of this location. It is about four point two
(4.2) miles, I believe from the Mattituck Cell site. Ag~n, the design
criteria is to provide just enough signal strength so that there is
sufficient overlap to ensure a hand-off to the next cell. And, one of
the things that I wanted to stress this evening is that a~{n unlike
other technologies, it's in our best interest not to be too tall. Too
tall is bad for us, and so we have every incentive to be at and designed
for just high enough to provide what we call that effective hand-off.
As you are traveling from community, or as you are traveling down a
roadway, or as you are walking from place to place, as you walk away
from one eel] site, the signal tends to fade, very much as if you are
driving outside of the coverage area, say from a FM station. The signal
gets weaker and weaker and weaker to the point where it becomes
unintelligible and it no longer provides the information that you need.
At celluars designed such that the next cell site provides a hand off
PAGE 34
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. FOX (con't.): and allows that continuous conversation to go on.
As part of my submittal for the record before each of you is part of our
analysis. The engineering process is an iterative process. We start at
low heights, we look for again, the optimal coverage, yet we don't go
beyond where we can achieve that objective. In the case of this, there
were a number of enervative steps through the process, but for the sake
of the explanation this evening, we've detailed four separate eases.
We've looked at the Mattituek Cell Site operating at thirty-five
(35) feet. And it is clear from our analysis and also again the
attachments to my presentation this evening, which you have in front of
you, that it does not provide proper overlap with the adjacent cell
sites.
The next case has shown there is an analysis performed at fifty
(50) feet, again it is very clear through the ~n~lysis, not quite enough
coverage for the purpose of this cell site.
Seventy-five (75) feet again, the same case.'
And then if you look, again it is Exhibit"A", I believe in the
package. It is the one on top, you can ~ee the coverage shown for the
hundred foot proposed height. To us this is the optimal height, we do
not require any more than a hundred feet to effectively provide a
quality signal to the community. And it truly will not work to the
quality levels that we need to provide to the community at anything less
than one hundred (100) watts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whom might I ask in the field of endeavor that
you brought for us, the question of any disturbance caused by this
transmission tower.
MR. FOX: I would be glad.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are, of course, in the world today of the East
End and I can remember thirty (30) years ago and we did not trove
Cablevision, and that is the reason why one of our members has left
because he does work for a cable organization, alright. And some people
still have regular antennas on their houses, some of them have FM
antennas., some of them CB antennas, and so on and so forth, okay. Is
there any interference with these?
MR. FOX: That is a very good question. The FCC gave that very very
careful eonsidersation when allocating us the frequencies that we
operate on. We take great pains to properly engineer our system. I can
state, just by way of example, I hope this would address the concern.
Interference can happen, however, we are currently operating well over
six thousand (6,000) transmitters within the New York/Metropolitan area
with no known reported cases of interference. And we as a matter of
fact have a letter from the Federal Communications Conunission stating
this. It is part of the mandate of our license that we operate on an
interference free basis. And, again, it's attributed to the engineering
and as well as the setup. And the designation of the frequencies by the
PAGE 35
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. FOX (con't,):Federal Communication Commission so as there is no
overlap between adjacent services. We have our own unique frequency on
which we operate we are the only ones allowed to operate on it, and we
maints~n as required by our license very, very strict tolerances to
those operating parameters. It's just day to day business, it is what
we do.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two other quick questions, the approximate or the
exact height of the tower itself is one hundred and four (104) feet?
MR. FOX: No, to the tip of the antennas, it is one hundred (100)
feet. To the very top of the highest point, it is one hundred (100)
feet even. One hundred (100) feet, nothing more than that. It's a
very highest piece on the structure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I' don't know if it was 'NYNEX or if it was CeHuar
One, we are referring to as Celluar One now or Metro One, or doesn't
make any difference.
MR.SMITH: Same nose and face.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have two antennas that are going up like
on one or two of these units, is this similar to the one that would be
constructed here.
this
MR. FOX: Not in this case.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will be a flat top.
MR. FOX: It will be a flat top, it does not have, like the night ...
I observed the NYNEX tower, they do have an antenna protruding from the
top of the structure, not at all is the case. We have nine (9) antennas
around the base of the structure, that is it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Similar to the one in Calverton or somewhere up
the Island,
MR. FOX: I am not familiar with that one.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. And the wind resistance--150 mph wind?
MR. FOX: Mr. Papay is here to address, any of the concerns therein,
believe, that it's spoken to in the past, however, I am not the expert
there.
I
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. Thank you.
MR. FOX: Thank you very much.
MR. SMITH: Do you want'me to have Mr. Papay address the ....
PAGE 35
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, just address that for anybody here that is
interested.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Papay I believe was sworn the last time he was here.
He is a professional engineer of structures. It is his type of thing.
MR. PETER PAPAY: Good evening. As I had stated previously, the design
of the manifolds or other towers supporting antennas is decreed by a
national standard. It has been adopted by the American NationR1
Standards Institute. It's entitled, actually it is numbered 222 current
division Where they set forth the design speeds for the
design of tower's manifolds. For this portion of Long Island, the
design wind speed, or sustain speed, now would be 85 mph. Celiuar One
has opted to design air towers or manifolds for a wind speed of 100 mph.
These wind speeds are not gusts, these wind speeds are sustained speeds
or the wind that would occur over a mile or more in time or distance. It
will sustain gusts of higher than 100 mph and that is incorporated within
the design itself. Due to conservative and the mechanics of design, it
will sustain winds of even greater than gusts of over 125 mph.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much.
MR. PAPAY: Your welcome.
MR. SMITH:Mr. Goehringer, the young man that gave you the engineering
ease, he said it differently the last time we were together, I believe
we asked him whether or not could it blown over, he said, of course
anything made by man can be blown over, but that our concern at that
velocity is not the tower coming dow-n, it's your neighbor's car blowing
through the side of your house. So, they are built to withstand the
hurricane forces that we may see out here on Eastern Long Island. I
would like the professionals answer any other questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My only other, I have two other quick concerns
that maybe you might not want to sit down, but then you can address
them. Assuming that some time in the future, Metro One/Celhiar One no
longer wanted to lease this property, what would happen to the tower?
And what would be the timely fashion of removing it?
MR. SMITH: Yes, I can probably address that. I like to, yours is not
the technology question, but it is the lease that he may have with Mr.
Baxter's finite. I believe that this particular [ease, although I'm not
sure I drafted it, it is a ten (10) plus ten (10) or twenty (20). The
lease language states that the tenant will restore the property to it's
condition prior to their entering onto the property. I'm not sure if
Mr. Baxter or his heirs would want us to put it back the way it is
today, but I can assume that the tower would come down and the building
would be restored without the equipment in it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the only other concern I have is that little
PAGE 37
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): word in the Code which refers
primary, secondary. Would we construe this to be a primary use on the
property since it is the newest use, or the use that will he continually
used? Or would we construe this as an accessory use?
MR. SMITH: Well, I'm not sure which it is, because it is not an issue
that I've armlyzed for this particular presentation. I can only say
that the use of the property, now as a Special Exception use, is the
issue that we have already been through in this particular instance.
And whether we have done it rightly or wrongly, I don't think fault to
right or wrong is the issue, ttmt is behind us. The property is
identified as a property upon which its use can be, however characterized
and the remand of dusty soil, is for the puposes of considering height.
And beyond that, I am not sure I can comment. In the abstract, I could
analyze for you those things. As a professional, I don't have to here.
I have a decision, I have a judgment, the judgment is final. It is not
a question anymore. Thank you sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I will be right with you sir.
anybody have any questions of either one of these or any of these people?
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, I was looking at the attachment, Exhibit "B"
guess it is, Attaehment "A & B" where you've got the 'different heights,
diagrammed here with the towers with a! one hundred (100) feet and
seventy-five (75) feet. It doesn't really appear to be that much
difference between the hundred foot and the seventy-five (75) foot
coverage, you still have areas that aren't covered by either. And what
surprises me is you say you don't want to much overlap and yet, with the
seventy-five (75) foot height, you come right up to the Southold cell,
With the hundred foot height, you really don't show any more coverage to
that east side, which doesn't seem to make much sense. It would appear
to me that the seventy-five foot height would pretty much satisfy your
desires here.
MR. FOX: I would be glad to address that I don't know if... If you
look closely and again, our design criteria is the minimal height
necessary to meet our criteria. If you look very closely at the
seventy-five (75) foot model, you can see that there is a stretch along
Route 25 that does not meet the criteria. Also, I would say that again
the contours are shown, they are not circular, as you might expect from
a set up like this and that is because of the varying terrain. Terrain
obviously limits radio. And so, it is not possible to cover everywhere
you want To. We can't control the laws of physics and get the signals
to go exactly where we want and exactly where we don't want them to go.
But, I can tell you though very specifically, the decision looking at
the seventy-five (75) feet is that there is a stretch of Route 25 that
just is not covered, just does not meet the criteria. If you go upwards
from that, just a bit more to the hundred-foot level, again you can see
by the Exhibit"A" that that criteria is met through the communities
major, major highway, where the majority of the traffic is at least and
to
Does
PAGE 38
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. FOX (eon't): emergency vehicles predominately travel. As well as,
again overlap between cells is not by itself undesirable. What the
objective there is there is really no need for too much of it, anythi~lg
beyond that becomes undesirable. So then to answer your question
directly, if you look closely at Attachment "B", you can see that the
Neg 85 DBM contour which this represents, just doesn't quite match up
there. North and south, again, we could go higher to cover those areas
and cover everything, but it gets to the point of diminishing returns,
it gets to the point of where it starts interferring in other areas.
And, so it is a process of trade offs in the engineering criteria. And,
again I would state it's very clearly in our benefit to design just up
to the height necessary to cover the target area. So, again, you can
see the differences between the two.
MEMBER VILLA: That leads to a question--what would be the minimum
height that you need to cover that gap on Route 25? Twenty (20) feet
off the tower would possibly bring it down almost a tree height, which
would be less visibility. We're in a rural atmosphere, and we are
trying to keep it that way and you are starting to spring these towers
up all over the place. And, you know, we are going to end up looking
like windmill farm.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Villa so that we don't get an assumption in here that
may or may not be correct. In asking Mr. Fox to prepare for this
evening, I had him focus because we were talking about Southold and
Southold people, but providing service with the south. You see to do
the map modeling for you relative to the given site, you need Southold,
which is Peconic. You gain the advantages of Southold folks probably
the tower at Northville, it was involved with the Laurel side of the
line. I understand your concern, but to adequately address it and. if
you want to talk about dropping the tower height, you have to also ask
what the effect of that may be with reference to the tower to the west.
I am not cutting him off, but he should be reminded that although I have
asked him to couch his testimony in terms of Southold Town, in answering
this question what you do in going from a hundred to n~uety-five,
ninety-eight (95, 98) whatever, has an effect upon the coverage and/or
the efficiency required by his licenses to the west. And with that
caveat I have a little problem with his answering the question.
MEMBER 'VILLA: Well, to throw it back in that aspect, I would like to
see the coverage then from the west and how it effects this cell as well?
(Tape changed)
MR. FOX: Well, again, it is a very good question, and I appreciate
council indicating as is very much the case, eelluar design is very,
very complicated. Not overly so, such that professionals can deal on
the field can understand it very straight forward. However, in this
case it's not possible, looking at the situation and the situation
within Southold, we need sufficient overlap to hand off between cell
PAGE 39
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. FOX (con.t.): sites. To go below one hundred (100) feet, fails
below the design criteria for the quality which we are required to
provide. There are again certain tollerances in this criteria, however,
it would not be in the community's best interest or ours to construct a
single cell site within the community that doesn't serve the community
at really what is known through the industry as an acceptable level of
signal strength. Further, again we could easily argue that we could
lower the height of any towers, that is possible, I have been asked that
many other times, can you lower that tower, the answer is yes. But, to
provide the same quality of service as mandated by the FCC, it would
require additionai towers, additional burden to the community to have to
go through a similar hearing as this. The issue is, I th{nk, very
straight forward for us, from the engineering perspective. At this
particular height, at this particular location to provide a quality
signal to the location, to the target areas here, we do need to be a
hundred feet. It takes more to build a higher tower, it costs more. We
are very, very much sensitive. At Celluar One are part of the
communities all throughout the areas we serve. We're sensitive to these
issues, we are sensitive to the community. We understand that the lower
the better. That is in our best interest, the lower the better. And
this is thoroughly been looked at. I can assure of that. It is a very
very good question.
MEMBER VILLA: Isn't this designed although for a hundred foot pole to
standard kind of design?
MR. FOX: I don't know what you mean by that, a standard kind ....
MEMBER VILLA: I mean a hundred foot is one of your standards that you
MR. FOX: Not necessarily, not necessarily. You know, even numbers
tend to work out, it could have been .... Again, we are tatk~ng about
degrees of differences. It could have easily have been a hundred and
five feet or ninety-~ne feet, but, again, I am not exactly sure how
many different iterations were looked at. But, again, as shown by the
Attachment "A,, it does meet the criterion. If we could go lower and
trust me in when I say that we would, because of the cost and the time,
and all of the other issues, but from the engineering prospective,
again, one of the objectives is to cover the main roads, the community
in which we serve and the hundred feet level meets that objective and
that criterion.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir.
MR. FOX: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else, I know you want to
question back there sir,' I will be right with you. Oh, you don't want
to ask a question, oh okay. Is there anybody else who would like to
ask a
PAGE 40
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): speak in favbr of this application?
Anybody like to speak against this application? Any further questions
from any Board members? Hearing no further questions, I will make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later on both
hearings.
MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second.
All in favor - AYE.
End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 7/29/92)
PAGE 41'
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
APPEAL ~ 4120
Applicant(s): William Goodale and Mattituck Auto Center, Inc.
Location of Property: 7655 NYS Route 25, Laurel, NY
County Tax Map No.: 1000-122-6-30.1 (Previously 30)
The Chairman opened the Hearing at 9:42 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and Application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess we will address that issue first.
have a ' copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. And I will take the site plan out
of the other application to address this particular issue. And I assume
that Mr. Strang is dealing with this? I am sorry Kevin, go ahead.
I
MR. KEVIN MeLAUGHLIN: First of aH my name is Kevin MeLaughlin and I
am here on behalf of the applicant. I would like to hand off a letter
with some exhibits, it's in response to the letter that was delivered to
this Board from the Planning Board and have enough copies for everyone.
I apologize it's getting here at ti~s late date, but I didn't get acopy
of the Planning Board letter until a couple of days ago. Part of what
that letter is goes to the area variance part of it goes to the Special
Exception. Basically, what we have here is, what we hope to use the
property for is a new car sales and in conjunction with that used car
sales on the lot. And the Zoning Code requires a twenty-five (25) foot
vegetative buffer zone in the front yard area. The problem with that
for us is if you require us to put that twenty-five (25) foot vegetative
buffer in, we cannot park any ears along the front of the building. If
we cannot park any cars along the front of the building, I submit to you
that we are not going to sell any cars whatsoever. Mr. Goodale here, he
will talk to the Board about his experience in the car sale business and
in particularly his experience on this lot when there was a time when
his ears were back away from being put out front, where nobody could see
them. We're here before you today, your relief valve, we are looking
for some relief. We have gone subsequent to the last time we were here,
we had gone to the Planning Board and discussed with them the
possibility of some modification of this twenty-five (25) foot buffer
area. Exhibit "2" of my letter to you, the third page of Exhibit "2"
contains a sketch that shows some saw-toothed parking, four parking
spots in the front of the building. And the two pages before that on
Exhibit "2" are the cover letter from the Planning Board to me and this
is a submittal from them to me indicating initially what they wanted to
see. In response to that, we sent them Exhibit "3", which is our sketch
of the property and the parking we were hoping to be able to have in the -
buffer area in front. In response to Exhibit "3", we got Exhibit "4"
back and the third page of that contains their final decision as to what
the property should look like, which is a full twenty-five (25) foot
buffer. And in fact, what they indicated to us at a sit down work
PAGE 42
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. McLAUGHLIN (con't.):session was, they in fact had never sent us
Exhibit "2" or' never had authorized that to have been sent. If you look
at Exhibit "2", it provides less than the setback that we provide in
Exhibit "3". It does provide for less total number of parking spaces
but even with the saw-toothed configuration, even at its widest point,
we are talking of perhaps five (5) feet setback from the property line.
Our Exhibit "3" provides for five (5) foot vegetative buffer within our
property line, but in addition to that and Mr. Strang will be talking
about that in more detail. Between our property line and where the
extension of the curb from the Suffolk Times building next door, there
is an additiorml thirteen (13) feet of space there between our property
line and where the street would actually be. So under that scenario, we
would be talking about cars being no closer than eighteen (18) feet to
the road. We had numerous discussions with the Planning Board about
incorporating that all into the configuration. And, again, what we
finally got from them was the final Exhibit on my letter to you, which
indicates in addition to that thirteen (13) feet, they wanted another
twenty-five (25) feet. Which would put our cars basically forty (40)
feet, at best would put our cars forty (40) feet off the road and I
believe Mr. Strang will indicate to this Board that effectively it would
· remove any possibility of parking cars in front of the building.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you explain something to me please?
measured yesterday morning at 6:30 a.m. From inside of the sidewalk to
the place, to the line, the beginning so to speak of the existing two
story building, where is the property line, where does the property
start so to speak..
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Maybe if I show you ....
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:..in reference to the sidewalk and its proximity.
I started with the telephone pole on the Suffolk Times building, which
is approximately just inside of the...
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Okay, from the front of the building to the property
line is fifty-three point five (53.5) feet. From the property line to
the inside edge of the sidewalk is an additional five (5) feet, so we
are talking fifty-eight point five (58.5) feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is where I got the fifty-nine (59) feet.
Okay, so we are talking fifty-three feet five inches (53' 5").
MR. MeLAUGHLIN: To the property line.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the property line, okay. What bearing
the curb cut really have on the aspect of your presentation. The curb
cut really to us is meaningless. I mean, I am not taking it away from
you, I am just asking you what does it have to do with this... The
buffer area is going to start Within the property Line area, right.
does
PAGE 4 3
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. Me LAUGHLIN: That is what the Code says.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I mean that is what you're here for, okay,
because you are saying that from that five (§) feet inside of the
sidewalk, you now have to go another twenty-five (25) feet, which is a
total of thirty (30) feet from the sidewalk.
MR. Mc LAUGHLIN: Thirty feet from the inside of the sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MR, MeLAUGHLIN: Yes. What I am saying to you is that will put us back
so far into the property taking into account the existing building, that
we cannot park ears in front area.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. McLAUGHLIN:If we cannot park ears in the front area of a car lot,
I submit to you, we are not going to sell any cars. Nor could we ever
justify the expenditure for the improvements to the property. So what we
are looking for is some relief. One of the suggestions that we had made
to the Planning Board is how about if we put in the vegetative area and
incorporate within that, and I'm not sure and Garrett will get into the
details of that, maybe a little bit greater, some kind, apparently there
is some kind of pads that you can put in the ground to which grass will
grow, but are substantial enough that you can park cars on. And if we
can park cars on, but still have a vegetative area. And~ again that
idea was totally rebuffed by the Planning Board. It was no--twenty-five
(25) foot vegetative area, no cars allowed. It's just that I don't think
that when the twenty-five (25) foot buffer area was put in the Code, this
type of a business was comtemplated, Because if it was, you've
effectively eliminated this kind of business from l~eing finaneiaily
possible. So What I submit that we have here is a very strong case of
practical difficulties. If we don't get some relief from the
requirement of the twenty-five (25) foot vegetative buffer, we're going
to be parking our cars so far off the road and out of sight that we are
not going to be able to operate the business. It is going to cause
severe economic hardship to my client, which he will talk more fully
about, and I think that it is a classic example of practical
difficulties in applying this particular standard to this particular use.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, what is Garrett going to do for us. He has
something?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN:Yes, Garrett?
MR. GARRETT STRANG: Good evening. Just, many of the points Kevin
already brought up with respect to what when on there, but a brief
history of what transpired here. Our ~ultiai submission to the Planning
Board, because the the nature of this particular business had
PAGE 44
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. STRANG (con't.): the vehicle display shown on the property line.
My experience with the Planning Board in the past and my observations of
what goes on, even as recently as from the last few weeks, is that the
Planning Board apparently makes a judgment in an application that comes
before them as to whether this twenty-five (25) foot buffer is in fact
needed or required or can be reduced or eliminated. So our original
application to them made no provision for the twenty-five (25) foot
buffer. Trying to work, have them work with us to say what we need to
display the vehicles as close to the road as possible for it to be a
practical and viable business. When they came back with their sketch,
which Kevin referred to as Page 3, your Exhibit "2", the saw-toothed
configuration, that stemmed from a conversatioa in a meeting that was
had with the pLa~nlng Dept. And an indication that they would like to
see some kind of green area out in front. There were certain
impracticalities in that saw-toothed configuration in that the cars had
to be parked diagonally and it was a Hmit as to the number of cars that
could be parked, as shown there, I thluk there is only four (4). And,
again because of the nature of this business, it is imperative that as
many cars as practical be on display. Our original scheme had called
for eight (8) cars across the front, parked out at the property line.
As Kevin noted, the greatest expanse of parking, of green that was
afforded in that particular scheme that the Planning Board presentated
to us was five (5) feet. And then reduced as the apex of the parking
stall projected out towards the property l~ne. I countered to the Board
and said we would like to be able park the cars head in or head out, as
you will, to be able to maximize the number of cars displayed, and we'll
give you the five (5) feet, we'll give you the five (5) feet ali the way
straight across so that now you'll now pick ap a total area five ($)
foot buffer. And in addition to that, we'll give up one of the spaces,
reduce our parking to eight (8) to give you some additional green on
either side. When I left the meeting at that point and time with that
presentation, they said well, put it on paper and we will take a look at
it, which we did. It sort of caught all of us, I ~bi~k, by surprise,
after that submission was made. When he came back and said we want
twenty-five (25) feet now, it's like whoa.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question Garrett?
MR. STRANG: (nod yes.)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no contest over where the curb cut has
to go for the ingress and egress into this thing, is that correct?
MR. STRANG: As far as curb cut, you are talking about just the thirty
(30) foot, what twenty-five (25) foot wide opening, coming in out of the
site.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where that's going to go?
MR. STRANG:That the only thing that is locating that is the practically
PAGE 45
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. STRANG (con't.): of the site in that there is a semblance of a
curb cut there existing, although it doesn't meet State DOT requirements
presently. And we do have a driveway that does service the rear of the
lot on that side of the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My question is looking at this original site plan
that you did, the curb cut is going to be cut approximately ten (10)
feet from the westerly property line? Is that approximately, the
Planning Board is somewhat in concert with that.
MR. STRANG: With the ten (10) foot offset here.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With the offset there, okay.
MR. STRANG: That's I think
Exception aspect between
feet off the property line.
is one of the requirements of the Special
curb cut entrance to the site be ten (10)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I am asking, we now
distance and this particular area, be it either green or cement or
whatever, which I would refer to as a return.
have a
MR. STRANG: It is proposed to be green.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is a width of what? Four feet?
MR. STRANG: Well, no, under the new scheme. This was the original
scheme, as you see the parking is all the way out on the property line.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I am just trying to get a distance from the
inside of that to this particular area here and I am seeing
seventy-seven (77) feet. Is that correct?
MR. STRANG: Well, that was under this scheme, since been reduced.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It has been reduced because now we have eight (8)
feet here?
MR. STRANG: We have eight (8) feet there and we have eight (8) feet
here instead of the four (4) and four (4) that previously existed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we have twenty-five (25) feet here?
MR. STRANG: No. In our scheme or our proposal, we are showing five
(5) feet...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand. I know you are showing
(5) feet, but I mean the Planning Board. wants eight (8) and eight (8)
subtracted from seventy-seven (77).
five
PAGE 46
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. STRANG: No, that was our proposal.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is your proposal.
MR. STRANG: The Planning Board wants, the Planning Board is
that from the property line for a distance of twenty-five (25) into the
property...
asking
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The green buffer. I just want to know
distance... What do we have of net display area, notwithstanding the
twenty-five (25) feet or the five (5) feet, okay.
MR. STRANG: So, we have seventy-seven (77) less eight (8), sixty-nine
(69).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, we have sixty-nine (69) feet, which Linda
just mentioned, right?
MR. STRANG: Which is seven (7) parking spaces, seven (7) display
spaces.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the basic question is here, how close to five
(5) feet inside of the sidewalk is this Board willing to give this
applicant, is basically the issue at this time?
MR. STRANG: Or basically, essentially we're looking for, right, for
that sixty-nine feet of space, we are looking to have five (5) foot
greenbelt between the property line and the beginning ef the display as
opposed to a twenty-five foot greenbelt as asked for by the Planrd~g
Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, now in the discussions with the Planning
Board has there been any discussion other than the greenbelt being grass.
Is it going to remain as grass or is it going to be required to have
pine or some sort of...
MR. STRANG: They haven't even addressed that issue. They said they
wanted a planting area. They have not said whether grass is fine, which
it exists on the neighboring lots, which they made reference to, or if
they wanted it landscaped. So, part of the area at the Suffolk Times is
landscaped, I think on the shopping center immediately to west is just
lawn.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, we have Rich here. I purposely did
measure the length of the average car that he has down there. We have
five (5) feet, just for the beck of it, the normal new car today is
between sixteen and eighteen (16 and 18) feet, right?
the
not
MR. STRANG: I would say yes.
PAGE 47
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The older cars were maybe as much as twenty
feet, alright. We have fifty-three and a half (53 1/2) feet to the
building. Assuming that the parking was done either perpendicular or
diagonal, which ever way, who the beck cares which way it is, we have
got five (5) feet to the property line, we got another five (5) feet
that is ten (10) feet, we then have eighteen (18) feet after that, that
is twenty-eight (28) feet, right?
(20)
MEMBER VILLA: What is the second five?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I got five, there are asking for five feet on a
buffer, okay ..
MEMBER VILLA:On the front property line?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER VILLA: And then the cars.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that is twenty-eight (28) feet, is that
correct? We need five, five and eighteen.
BOARD MEMBERS: What is the second five (5)?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The five (5) feet they are asking for. Five feet
[ am talking about from the inside. Okay, we will just refer to it from
the property line.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: You are adding to the sidewalk,
property.
that is not even the
BOARD SECRETARY: Let's just do the property--five and eighteen is
twenty-three.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we have twenty-three (23) feet. So, we have
approximately thirty (30) feet from the rear of the cars to the building.
MR. STRANG: Twenty-nine and a half...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, .is that correct?
MEMBER VILLA: Thirty and a half feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thirty and a half feet. Now going to the worst
possible scenario of the Planning Board's okay. We have twenty-five
(25) plus eighteen (18), so that is forty-three (43) right? So you have
ten (10) feet to the building which personally I think is absolutely
ridiculous because you can't get a fire vehicle in ten (10) feet, you
need fifteen to...
PAGE 48
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. STRANG: You can't move the vehicle, you' can't back an eighteen
(18) foot or a sixteen (16) foot vehicle out in ten (10) feet of space.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The problem we have is here, we should have taken
the Special Exception aspect of this first, because now I don't know
what to do with this hearing, because we have other discussions to do
ensuing concerning this Special Exception aspect. So now that I
understand this situation, you know, let's, we will do the best we can.
We will probably have to come down and remeasure.
MR. STRANG: The only alternative, one of the with the
discussion of the Planning Board with respect as to how the area to be
treated as green "green area". As Kevin indicated I did make a
suggestion ~to Board that we use a paving material that is available
today. It is basically a honeycomb block that can be laid out which
gives you a good surface on which to drive. It is traffic bearing, but
also allows grass to grow through to the extent that you don't see this
honeycomb product.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Neat.
MR. STRANG: So you can drive on it so you don't wind up with
field basically from just driving on a lawn area, yet you still have the
effect of a greenbelt, but they were unreceptive to that solution.
a mud
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
to cut you off, and you
what Mullen Motors has...
And you
discussed
discussed... I am sorry, I didn't mean
with them concrete-pads similar to
MR. STRANG: That was suggested, similar to what Mullen has . just
putting in concrete pads..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Don't bring Mullen in it please.
(tape turned over)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The site plan refers to five (5) spaces
display. Where there are actually more than that, there are one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
MR. STRANG: There is eight (8) in this scheme. This particular site
plan that you are looking at here is outdated.
for
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, do you have anything new that you can give
US.
BOARD SECRETARY: This is all we have right now.
MR. STRANG: This is basically superimposed on this. This is the last
presentation that was made to the Planning Board, which shows seven (7)
spaces. But, let me go back, if I may for a moment to clarify this.
PAGE 49
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. STRANG (con't.):This is a parking calculation schedule. In other
words according to the code, it says for every vehicle, every six
hundred (600) square feet of display, you need one paridng space for
customers use. Alright, so we were going to have based on the number
of, if you take the square footage in this case o~ in this case the
square footage of spaces being used for display divided by the six
hundred (600), it equated to five (5) parking spaces for customers,
which are the spaces that are provided for us here.
BOARD SECRETARY: But if you have fourteen (14) cars for display, how
many cars would you need for parking for customers?
MR. STRANG: Well, if you had fourteen (14) cars for display, which we
don't, but...
BOARD SECRETARY: Well, you do today, today you have how many
there on display? How many are in there, about twenty (20)? Eighteen
(18)?
down
MR. STRANG: I don't know, I can't answer that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we will ask Rich. How many cars do you have
on display now?
MR. RICHARD GOODALE: Well, tonight there is only maybe six or seven (6
or 7). I try and keep it around fourteen (14).
BOARD SECRETARY: Yesterday there looked like there was about sixteen
or seventeen (16 or 17) on it.
MR. R. GOODALE: I have a truckload going out in the morning.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Those are cars that he takes in trade and then he
ships them up the Island for auction. They really don't stand...
MR. STRANG: For disposal.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In other words ....
MR. STRANG: They are not being marketed, they are being disposed of.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If the ear sits for too long, you will trade it
off for another car?
MR. R. GOODALE: No, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you do?
MR. R. GOODALE: These are trades that I wouldn't ask anybody for money
for, I would take...
PAGE 50
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. Oh, those are trades you took in.
MR. STRANG: Trade-ins.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I'm sorry, okay.
MR. STRANG: They are not for sale, basically, they are in transition.
He took them in as a trade-in for someone who bought a vehicle and now
he is going to truck them off site to be disposed of in another facility.
MEMBER VILLA: It is still lot coverage.
MR. STRANG: Yes, it is a transient situation, ,it is not a permanent
situation. But, if that became an issue obviously we would have to do
the calculation of how many vehicles are on display divided by the
number of square feet and...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, there is also the possibility of requiring
every vehicle in transition to be placed in a place other than in a
display area. I mean that is what I would do.
BOARD SECRETARY: Or a parking area.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or a parking area and that could be kept in back
of the soon to be, or maybe to be accessory structure.
MR. STRANG: Well that certainly a possibility. I don't see that as a
difficulty. But, again, I just wanted to clarify what this was. It
wasn't five (5) display spaces, it was five (5) spaces for customers
relative to the display that we have.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, and we are dealing with that on the basis
of fact that now have a curb cut and which protrudes further out into
the road being the main State highway, it's quite the possibility that
people may not park in front of this site, we hope that they don't park
in front of the site. They would enter the premises to view the
vehicles alld so on and so forth. Similar to what people do at the
Suffolk Times, similar to what people do...
MR. STRANG: Or at any other retail business. They would pull in and
park in the designated parking area and then view the merchandise.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, great. Yes, Rich?
MR. R. GOODALE: I wanted you to know that over the last year or so, I
have been tracking where the business comes from. About fifty percent'
(50%) in the summer does come from people driving passed. About
twenty-five percent (25%) people that I know and about another
PAGE 51
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. GOODALE (con't.):twenty-five percent (25%) from advertising. If I
had that buffer zone in the back, I would park those cars basically on
the side of the structure there. You can't really see them. I have had
people that live in this Town that have driven passed this place for six
months and finally say to me that I didn't even know you were here. I
mean, I think it is pretty visible but people don't. If the cars have
to be that far back, I would lose half of my business. And the
improvements that are going to need to be done, I even have a
brother-in-law in the business for the curbs and whatnot, somewhere in
the area of $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars). Obviously, I will
have to sell a pretty serious quantity of cars to come up with that kind
of money to do the improvements. And I want you to know that I do want
to get this done. Once those curbs are in the front yard it is going to
protect me an awful lot. I'm waiting for the day that somebody is going
to whack a whole lot of ears and put me in a rather bad position.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to refer to Rich here. As we had a
pro and con situation with McDonald's, which was across the street, I
happen to have in my boat in a private marina, one of which only has
maybe only four or five (4 or 5) slips. Your car agency has now been
reduced to shouting across the creek at me. This is just the abuse that
people take being on this Board. And the guy yells over to me and he
says, just right on the record I don't care whoever reads this okay,
"how come that guy is allowed to park those cars right against the road
like that?", meaning against the sidewalk. I said sir, it is a nature
of an application that is before us on Thursday night, and if you have a
.. Wednesday night, if you have a particular problem with it, please
come down. "I don't have time Wednesday night". Now this guy is 85
(eighty-five) feet away from me on the stern of my boat yelling across
the creek in residential houses. This is the kind of stuff, so it is a
pro and con situation. There are some people who are in favor of your
application, there are some people definitely not. And that's not just
one example I am telling you, you know we do get calls back and forth,
Excuse me, go ahead.
MEMBER DOYEN: What is the rationale for a 25 foot (twenty-five foot)
inlay? And why did anybody come up with that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no idea, that's got to be in that grand
planning...
MEMBER DOYEN: I'm just curious of that reasoning that was used to come
up with that figure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we ask the engineer here thai deals
with..
MR. STRANG: I don't know what the~e reason was. I think that there
was some idea that they felt this was a good idea to have on the books,
but it has alway been at the descretion Of the Planning Board whether it
PAGE 52
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. STRANG (con't.): enforced or not.
MEMBER DOYEN: What purpose does it serve?
information or incidental intelligence, why...
I mean just for general
MR. STRANG: This 25 (twenty-five) foot buffer?
MEMBER DOYEN: Just for aesthetic reasons or what?
MR. STRANG: Yea, I believe that they were looking to try and create a
little bit more of a green area along the side of the road. It's
probably, I guess a~ one point in time they were forcing buildings to
put there parking behind the 'building, forcing developers to put the
parking behind the building. As you see immediately near the site that
we have across the street at Brisotti & Silkworth, the building is
backwards. So, as we drive down the Main Road, we look at the back side
of the building. I don't necessarily tl~ink that's good planning or at
all a very aesthetic situation. But that is what the Planning Board in
their infinite wisdom decided that they wanted to do. They wanted the
building slip reversed and the parking to be inboard on the property,
instead of outboard. I guess this 25 (twenty-five) foot buffer is again
something along this line.
MEMBER VILLA: Many of the Towns require not only the setbacks, but
they require berms so you don't see it at all.
MR. STRANG: On new sites, if we were starting with a clean slate and
we had no development whatsoever and said okay from now on, this is what
we are going to ask every .new site that is developed to allow for this,
to have this. It is understandable, because if you are building a new
building, you have the flexibility to put ~it anywhere on the site. But
when you got existing sites, as we have here, and in many others
throughout the Town, and then you try to say we want you to meet this
criteria, in many cases it's impractical or impossible to do.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That clears up that issue.
MR. MeLAUGHLIN: I would like to make a couple more comments.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Thank you Garrett. Thank you Rich.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Just to give you an indication that this 25
(twenty-five) foot buffer is not always imposed, if you go by the Handy
Pantry, which is, just goi~e through like a leaf site plan approval, you
will find that the certainly don't have a (25) twenty-five foot buffer
area there, It starts out maybe 5 (five) feet in one area and it does
widen out. Last month, the Planning Board waived site plan requirements
on G & S Water Purification. They totally waived any and all, they are
adding on to their building there, I believe they are enclosing what had
been an overhang and a porch. The Planning Board a month ago waived
PAGE 53
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. McLAUGHLIN (con't.): anything. Waived all' site plan requirements
there including the 25 (twenty-five) foot buffer, if indeed they might
have wanted to impose thai on them. So, it is not something that has
been cast in stone and has been required of everyone. It seems to some
degree had .been picking and choosing what applications. Particularly as
to this site, not only does the use militate strongly against setting the
cars back that far, but if you look at the area in general, there are
some notable exceptions which the Planning Board has pointed out in
their letter. But those notable exceptions, none of them are talking
about a kind of business where you display your goods openly. You are
talking about the Times building, you're talking about the insurance
building, you're talking about a couple of proposed buildings that have
not nor 'quite probably never could be built out there. So, you are
talking about whole different uses and where the application of a 25
(twenty-five) foot vegetative area is really to a large degree
insignificant to their operation of their business. What I just want
the Board to get is the very strong feeling that it is not at all
insignificant to our business, it is of the essence.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bearing in mind that we don't know where we are
going with this hearing, we will go on and incorporate..
MEMBER DINIZIO: May I say something?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh yea, I'm sorry.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am having a hard time following the sequence
events here. And I have been sitting here very patiently. I'm lookJug
here at Exhibit, the one with the saw-toothed parking. Now, if I got
this right, the Planning Board submitted this back to you after you
submitted to them the same site plan that we saw before. Seven (7)
spaces, parked nose in to the road.
of
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I think, actually, there was 8 (eight) spaces parked
nose in, in our first plan.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So, that is here, thai is the last one, no no that is
the second one in a row~ here.
MR. MeLAUGHLIN: No, that is our newest one, it only shows 7 (seven)
spaces there. Our original one showed 8 (eight).
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is this one here? Is this the one we saw with
Steve..
MR. MeLAUGHLIN: No, this is our present proposal. This is our present
proposal~ this one right here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, so there is one before this.
PAGE 54
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. McLAUGHLIN: There was one before any of the Exhibits that are'in
here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, there are two before this. There is this one...
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Right, this one was generated by the Planning Board.
That was the first one, that was the initial one. This is the second
MEMBER DINIZIO: You submitted that one, the Planning Board sent this.
MR. STRANG: They came back with this, we said that you got 5 (five)
feet here, but you only have a foot here, so let's make it clean and go
straight across and take five (5) feet all the way across.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So, what was there objection to their own...
MR. STRANG: They claim they never got it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What if you said yes to this.
MR. STRANG: Well, I guess after we spent the time to develop site
plan and everything else and went in, they would have said we don't like
this change it, which they have done in the past.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: They disclaimed any knowledge of that being sent out.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, who drew this?
MR. STRANG: Someone in the Plannlug Dept. One of their staff members.
MEMBER DINIZIO: All I know is what I see and hear.
MR. STRANG: It was submitted with a covering letter that was
addressed...
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is this one here.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: The covering letter of the two pages...
MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the sidewalk here right? This is five (5)
feet okay. I'm sure this is
MR. McLAUGHLIN: This is five, this is four and this is five outside
again, which shows...
MR. STRANG: This is an overlay so it is pretty muddy at this point. A
lot of things got shifted around, so you. are looking at ghost images
coming through the overlay.
PAGE 55
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Actually, it is four, the
five more feet before you get to the property.
Garrett's got more copies.
sidewalk is four, there is
Why don't you take that,
MEMBER DINIZIO: This ought to be interesting.
(lot of people talking, hard to understand)
MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, so anyway so that is the sequence of events.
You went to them with our plan, the one we saw, they gave you something
back. You said no, how about this, which is the seven (7) spaces.
They said no, how about 25 (twenty-five) feet.
MR. STRANG: They're showing, this was their map with twenty
feet here~ with the beginnings of the parking spaces and five
(5) feet, because they want from the base of the building for again a
green space.
BOARD SECRETARY: Are we taking a break here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess we are adjourned here.
(short break)
MR. STRANG: ...this is the property line, you know we want you
extend this out to this point, the twenty (20) feet here and put the
parking in diagonally and we wound up with about a five (5) foot max at
the deepest point. Now, we are back to well this scheme really doesn't
work for us, because we are only getting four (4) cars, it is difficult
to maneuver them. Not only that with less than five (5) feet of looking
for more green, let us take this five (5) foot point come across with a
straight, let us park the cars head in and we'll ultimately pick up more
green as far as the front.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And you will get more space.
MR. STRANG: And we will get more spaces and the flexibility to
ears head in or diagonally or facing each other or whatever. Part of
the marketing strategy of selling cars is to keep moving them around and
keep changing their positions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are we all set now?
BOARD SECRETARY: Garrett, you have more of these right? Do you
an original 'plan of this? Because we are going to need one to scale, a
full map for County Planning as well as for the permanent file.
MR. STRANG: -I have extra copies of that overlay, I don't know if that
is sufficient or not.
(20)
to
put
have
PAGE 56
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
BOARD SECRETARY: Do you have this though on a regular ...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was it on a mylar?
MR. STRANG: No. It's just basically what it was, was a tissue which
was sketched and it was overiaid on the original and then it was
photocopied.
BOARD SECRETARY: It's the same scale though as that.
MR. STRANG: It is identical scale to this. And I do have extra
copies. I can make extra xerox copies of that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we will hold this hearing in abeyance,
will not close it and we will go on to the last hearing of the evening,
since the last two have been postponed and that is of course, the
Special Exception portion.
APPEAL #4119SE
Applicant(s): Richard Goodale and Mattituck Auto Center, Inc.
Location of Property: 7655 Main Road, Mattituck, NY
County Tax Map No: 1000-122-6-30.1 (previously 30).
The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:20 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there something that you would like to present
to us Mr. McLaughlin concerning the Special Exception aspect. I am
still trying to find the file, we are getting there.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Basically this is an application under Section
100-101(B)12 of the Code, which sets forth the criteria, And in order
to fulfill the requirements for. a Special. Exception for new vehicle
sales and accessory use vehicle sales. I submit to the Board that we
have complied with all of those requirements and/or the particular
requirements doesn't apply to our situation. If we go through it item by
item, the first one talks about entrance/exit driveways and their
location. I believe if you look at our map, we comply with what the
section asks for. The second section--the sale of used vehicles or
boats should be conducted as an accessory to the sale of new vehicles or
boats. I have submitted to this Board a .new car dealership agreement.
It is my client's intention to vigorously, market and sell these new
cars. I know the Planning Board brought up some concept that they have
that somehow it is a dollars and cents thing as to what is the primary
use and. what is the accessory use. I find that odd. I don't see
anything in the Code that would reflect that the primary use of a
property is measured in any sort of volume of dollars and cents. Mr.
Goodale is here, he will tell you that he is going to be marketing under
the dealership franchise agreement that we have submitted to this Board
PAGE 57
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. McLAUGHLIN (con't.): and will sell as many new vehicles as the
public will purchase. How many of that is going to be, no one can
prejudge. Hopefully, it will be many. As with any new ear dealer, he
will be selling used ears in conjunction with that. How mueh of his
sales will be one or the other, no one knows at this point. But I
submit to you that if you look at the books and records of most
automobile dealerships, you will find three (S) major categories at
which they make their money--sale of new cars, sale of used ears and
their service. And, I believe that you would probably find that most
dealerships make more than half of their money on the combination of the
sale of used ears and their service and less than half of their money on
the sale of new cars, especially in this economic climate. So, if that
was true, things, the situation for instance with Lucas Ford wouldn't
comply with what the Planning Board reads the Code to entail. So,
again, what we are planning to do there is the sale of new vehicles and
also the sale of used vehicles as an adjunct to that.
The next section "C" talkes about vehicle lifts or pits, dismantling
automobiles, we are not going to do that kind of work, And we'll submit
to you that .we are not going to do. We are not going to service. This
is not a service type of dealership, except possibility for
services on the new or used ears. But, we are not talking about lifts
and pits and that type of thing. All service would be eonduetad within
a building. Again, we're really not a service type of an organization
there. We are in the sales business, not the service business. There
is not going to be storage of gasoline or flammable oils in bulk, there
is not going to be any gasoline or fuel pumps on the area. We ~rill
comply with the outdoor Hghting requirements.
And the final criteria under this subdivision is that it shall not
be within three hundred (300) feet of schools and churches, which it is
not. So, I will submit to the Board that we have satisfied all of the
criteria for this Special Exception use in this particular zoning
district and that the Board should look favorably on our application.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: [ have one major problem. The Town Attorney and
the Assistant Town Attorney have reviewed this dealership agreement and
they see serious flaws wilh~n that agreement. I have only a few of
those opinions. They have not been reduced to writing. The Town
Attorney did walk in tonight with shorts on and he did try and get a
hold of me, but I, of course, was up here. And I did have a discussion
with him this morning. However, at the time he had not review the
agreement. I think the best thing to do at the particular time is to
recess this and you discuss it with him. Hopefully, he will reduce it
to writing and we will take care of this whole problem. Hopefully it
will be taken care of and we will then be able to complete this hearing
process--both the buffer issue and this issue with the agreement and
then we will be able to make a decision. And hopefully everything will
be favorable. I can't guarantee you, but that is basieally the
situation. That's my opinion on the whole situation at this point.
MR. MeLAUGHLIN: I have no problem with meeting with the attorneys or
PAGE 58
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
MR. McLAUGHLIN (con,t.): assistant Town Attorney and going over that
agreement.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so let us do that. Hearing that
mind, I will make a motion recessing this to the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I say somethiug?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thanks.
was all going on..
I talked to Harvey in the office when this
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this, when you reduce this
hear the whole thing, okay, I don't want it fragmented so that is the
reason why I didn't want. I don't want to 'get into...
let~s
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would want them to know basically, Harvey did ask me
questions about the validity of the dealership. And it may behoove you
to when you speak to him to have that available. What is this company?
You know, some idea that this company exists, some idea that perhaps
brochures or whatever to prove that this is a valid company that is
making ears for sale. I just, he wanted me to relay that to you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At this state, at this ~time at some 10:30 p.m.
have no intentions of going through the el~tire gammit of the questioning
and, which I didn't get from him okay.
BOARD SECRETARY: I had conversations with Matt also, but...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't have a conversation with Matt
row[owed the agreement or Board assistant, secretary did have
discussion with the assistant Town Attorney. Again, nothing has been
reduced.to writing.
he
MR. MeLAUGHLIN: That's fine. I would prefer to respond...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want. to get the whole thing, the whole nine
yards right out and let us find out what the story is.
BOARD SECRETARY: Both attorneys should talk.
CHAIRMAN 'GOEHRINGER: Both attorneys, you have to talk to beth of them
because you may not get it from just one. Because they both reviewed
the file. And if we weren't on tape I would tell you a little joke
about the one attorney in Town..
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I will try and get a hold of them tomorrow and get the
process rolling.
PAGE 59
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD ZBA 7/29/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this has nothing to do with this hearing,
that joke.
BOARD SECRETARY: I forgot it, will you tell it?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I will tell it after you turn off the tape.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I will recess the
hearing and the Special Exception--the buffer issue and the, which is
the first hearing and the Special Exception to the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
AH in favor - AYE.
End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(transcribed by tapes recorded 7/29/92)