Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/09/1997 HEARING Transcript of Public Hearing October 9~ 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:45 P.M. - Appl. ~4517 - GABRIEL DARIN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's September 11, 1997 Notice of Disapproval, a Variance is requested under Article III, Section 100-33 for approval of "as built" accessory storage building, constructed under Building Permit ~24214Z with a finished height of 18 ft. 8 inches, which exceeds the maximum allowable finished height (average mean height) per code. Property Location: 1350 Mill Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel ~1000-106-10-3. I have a copy of a survey which indicates the approximate placement of the existing structure in the rear yard area somewhat some distance'from the house, skewed more toward the northerly property and i have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The improvement is approximately 24 x 24 and is two stories and will ask Mr. Darin if there's something he'd like to add? We always like to grill you, so why don't you stand up here and state your name for the record. MR. DARIN: My name is Gabriel Darin. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us what the purpose of this building is? MR. DARIN: We intend to purchase this building for storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that building going to be heated? What's going to be done on the inside right now, other than what exists now? MR. DARIN: Right now (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The building has a crawl space foundation? Alright, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Darin. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? ~ MEMBER TORTORA: What are you going to use it as? What kind of storage ( ) what? (inaudible-static) build it? ~Page 2 - Hearing franscripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. DARIN: Yeah, well we don't have a garage on the premises so just a tools, a probably architect supplies, all basics. MEMBER TORTORA: Workshop ( ), possibly? MR. DARIN: Yeah, as much as we can do ( ). MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible) MR. DARIN: Not.now. Possibly in the future we might use the upstairs for a studio. MEMBER TORTORA: You would have no objections to a condition that this not be a habitable construction now or in the future? MR. DARIN: No objection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're standing there, we'll ask if there's anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? You have to state your name for the record. You look like a relative. MR. ROBERT DARIN: His father. I built the built the building and the mistake that we made on the height, a, is that I had an old Southold Town Code and it said from the finish grade would become the average ( ) on the roof and supposedly it's from the, I was informed afterwards that I guess the change was that it was from the existing grade. Our intentions were to build up you know the earth a little more around it which would have given us the proper clearance. So, that's where the error was, structure, ( ) just 8 inches. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. ~Page 3 Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 6:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4516 - JOSEPH SHIPMAN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's August 20, 1997~ approval is required under Article XX, Section 205.A (4) from the Board of Appeals for placement of a freestanding agricultural (nursery) sign in this R-80 Zone District. Property Location: North Side of Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel #1000-108-3-5.5. I have a copy of the survey indicating approximately a central location/ to the property which has 264.09 feet on the main road and Mr. Shipman is looking to place a sign which indicates Shamrock Christmas Tree Farm which is approximately 3-1/2 ft. x 7-1/2 ft. Approximately 7 feet from the front property line. Mr. Shipman is there anything you'd like to add to it for us? MR. SHIPMAN: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mrs. Tortora. We have to grill you, remember. MEMBER TORTORA: What"s the height from the a it's a 3-1/2 x 7-1/2 ft. excluding the roof? You have a nice roof in the picture. MR. SHIPMAN: Yeah, no, the roof is ( ) because it was part of the square footage. MEMBER TORTORA: You're not planning on having ( ). MR. SHIPmaN: No. MEMBER TYORTORA: So, what's the total square? That would be a ? MR. SHIPMAN: 24. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, and how far back from the road? MR. SHIPMAN: 15 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: From the town right-of-way? MR. SHIPMAN: 7-1/2 ft. from the County right-of-way. MEMBER TORTORA: How many? MR. SHIPMAN: 7-1/2 or fifteen twenty inches. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this sign going to be lighted Joe? When I say lighted, I mean - ~Page 4 - Hearing' Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR, SHIPMAN: Eventually, yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Exterior lighting? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Exterior lighting? MR. SHIPMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not an iridescent sign that's going to a? MR. SHIPMAN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I notice that you have some brickwork or something that's going to go underneath it. MR. SHIPMAN: Eventually. MEMBER TORTORA: What would be the dimensions then off the ground as you can see the brickwork? MR. SHIPMAN: The height from the sign? The sign can't exceed 10 feet or 15 feet. The height of the sign is probably going to be about 8 to 10 foot° MEMBER TORTORA: Including the brickwork? MRo SHIPMAN: Well, the brickwork will be about 2 foot. MEMBER TORTORA: The total, total height, grade level? MR. SHIPMAN: The brickwork is not included, in other words, the sign is not above the height of the brickwork° The brickwork is built around the sign. So, the brickwork from the grade is 2 feet and the sign is 8 feet from the grade. MEMBER TORTORA: Total? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 10 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: 10 feet, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER ~INIZIO: No, that's just what I had. Actually, it'd be 10-1/2 ft. above the grade. What would you have, like floodlight sign on it, like that? MR. SHIPMAN: (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Joe. While you're standing there~ is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Thank you very much ~Page 5 - Hearing Transcripts · October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals for coming in and we hope to have a decision for you very quickly. Seeing no further hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. ~Page 6 Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 6:57 P.M. - Appl. ~4507 - M. ZEVITS CHAIR~AN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for Waivers (four lots) under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the March 21, 1997 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector issued on the following grounds: "under Article IIA, Section 100-23A, the lots in question are located in an R-40 Zone and are nonconforming. These lots have merged as they have been held in common ownership at sometime since July 1, 1983." Location of Property: 1300 Private Road off Sunset Lane, extending from the south side of Main Bayview Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel ID ~1000-88-6-18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5. I have a copy of the original subdivision map indicating lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 and those County Tax Map coincide with those and they are approximately 1-1/2 acre in size and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I'm just looking at the maps. Lots 3 and 4 are 19,400 and that the right-of-way extends to the other two. Yes, they're 14,636. I guess we're ready. Mr. Olsen, present? How are you tonight Sir? MR. OLSEN: Well, how are you? Good evening, my name is Gary Olsen and I'm an attorney having offices at Main Road, Cutchogue, and represent the applicants in connection with this matter. This application is for a labor of merger continuous parcels under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code. I respectfully submit to this Board, that this application should not be required. The applicants received approval from the Southold Town Planning Board, for a four lot minor subdivision which approval was granted on March 16, 1971. On November 24, 1992, parcels which all were owned by Joseph F. Zevits and Elizabeth W. Zevits, under Liber 5537, Page 03, conveyed to Joseph Zevits, Patricia Zevits Kelly, Joyce Zevits Katzell, Michael Zevits and Robert Zevits in Liber 11736, Page 16~ Thereafter, on July 10, 1995, the four lots were put into single and separate ownership as follows: Tax Lot # 18.2 was conveyed to Joyce Zevits Katzell and Robert Zevits in Liber 11733, Page 617, Tax Lot ~18.3 was conveyed to Patricia Zevits Kelly in Liber 1~733, Page 618, Tax Lot #18.4 was conveyed to Joseph Zevits in Liber 11733, Page 619, and Tax Lot #18.5 was conveyed to Michael Zevits in Liber 11733, Page 620. All four deeds were recorded on July 18, 1995 and the Board has copies of all of these deeds. The lots were intentionally conveyed into separate ownership to prevent merger in the event of the Town of Southold should ( ) merger. As you are aware the merger of all of this acted under new Local Law 23-1995 which did not become effective until December, 1995. It is submitted that since the subject parcels were in single and separate ownership, since before the effective date of the merger law and since the parcels were approved by the Seuthold Town Planning Board, that there is no mergers and that the lots do not require a waiver under Section 100-26. I submit to this Board that the decision of the Southold Town Building Department on August 22, 1996 and September 19, 1996, that these lots have merged was in error. The issues presented by ~Page 7 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals this application by the Zevits have already been decided by this Board in other applications. The Zoning Board of Appeals in the application of Linda Fessman, application #4420 on October t, 1996, reversed the action of disapproval by the Building Inspector and held that lots in R-40 Zoning District, which received Planning Board approval prior to May 20, 1983, as per former Section 100-31 B(1) in effect up until December 6, 1995, do not require a waiver under Section 100-26. The Zoning Board of Appeals said in the best of decision, that the vested lots which were single and separate ownership since on or before the effective date of new Local Law 23-1995 effective December of 95, do not require a waiver under Section 100-26 since they technically were not merged on the date of adoption of Local Law 23-1995 which provision of law replaced former Section 100-31 (b) and other provisions pertaining to a recognition of creating and retaining lots. In the Civil decision of Florence Pavlak, application ~1418, on October 1, 1996~ the Zoning Board decided that lo~s for single and separate ownership which had received Planning Board approval prior to May 20, 1983, did not require a waiver under Section 100-26. If said lots were single and separate ownership, before the effective date of Local Law, new Local Law, 23-1995, the Zoning Board reversed the decision of disapproval by the Building Inspector in that case also. I also refer the Board to the Corwin file, application #4504. The Corwin case was decided on September 11, 1997. The subject lot was created by minor subdivision approval by the Southold Town Planning Board, and signed by the Chairman, on September 15, 1969 and the lot wasn't single and separate ownerships prior to 1983. The Zoning Board held that the application for the Board in that case was moot and that no merger occurred as of July 1, 1983, or thereafter. I request that this Board follow its decisions in the Fessman, Pavlak, and Corwin cases and reverse the action of disapproval by the Building Inspector, and interpret that lots located in the R-40 Zone District, which received Planning Board subdivision approval, prior to May 20, 1983, as per former Section 100-31 B(1), in effect up until December 26, 1995, which lots were deeded in single and separate ownership since on or before the effective date, when new Local Law, 23-1995, do not require a waiver under Section 100-26, since they technically do not merge on the date of adoption of Local Law, 23-1995, which provisions of law replace former Section 100-31 B, and other provisions containing the creation and recognition of lots. As of December, 1995, new Local Law, replaced former Section 100-31, under the Zoning Codes in effect up until December of 95. Lots on approved subdivisions approved by resolution and final action of the Planning Board, will recognize the valid lots and receive Building Permits. The current owner Zevits, deeded out these four lots, single and separate ownership, prior to December of 1995. These lots have remained single and separate ownership prior to December of 1995. The Planning Board approval for Joseph Zevits, was in effect of these lots until December of 95 as indicated by former Section 100-31. Other agencies have also incepted Town approved subdivision lots at least until December of 95. Those maps have received County Health ~age 8 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals Department approvals prior to that time. Ail of the stated reasons, I request ~hat this Board approve this application and reverse the decision of the Building Department. Thank you° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Olsen, I have no questions° Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: That's very good, Mr. Olsen. I just have to ask you this question. It says on the disapproval, "These lots have merged as they have been held in common ownership at sometimes since July 1, 1983." Not before, but since, and I'm wondering, you know, how that comes in to play. MR. OLSEN: I don't think it does. I think it's, I think the Building Department is basically doesn't want to make the decision. I mean merger issues. They're not following the prior law and they're not following the law the way it was when the new law was enacted in December of 1995 and rather than make a decision saying that these, I think the law is clear that these lots have not merged and the fact that they were not in single and separate ownership before 83 is not an issue. That the law was very clear with ( ) for the new law became into effect that these lots were separate and valid building lots and quite frankly, the Building Department, until the new law came into effect in 95, December of 95, recognized them as valid building parcels. But, what they're doing, is they're asking ( ) from the Zoning Board and they might be fluttering up your calendar when they shouldn't be, and this issue that is before the Board now, has already been decided in other cases. MEMBER DINIZIO: I couldn't agree with you more. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why I didn't have any questions. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have any other questions. I just wanted to clear that up because that seemed rather odd to me, that I don't recall that being in the law since July, before, I heard it before. MRo OLSEN: It was the law and the Building Department recognized these lots before the new merger law became into affect for valid lots. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, these haven't been a, there's no swimming pools on these lots, there's no cesspools, there's no - CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: There's a house on one of them. MR. OLSEN: There's a house on one of them. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I know, I mean that house isn't supported by one of the other lots, with a cesspool, chain link fence, accessory Page 9 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals building? The house stands onto a lot of its own with OK setbacks, everything with the exception of this one little piece vacant. MR. OLSEN: And the other two, the other lots, 2, 3 and 4 on the subdivision map elevated. MEMBER ~iNIZIO: I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing is, the Corwin case was not identical, the circumstances were not identical as Pavlak, Fessman. In that case it wasn't a question of single and separate ownership, that it was a question of having an approval, or it wasn't insufficient lot size. However, the Board in its investigation discovered that in fact the Corwin case did have lot ( ) approval. So the application is not the ( ) situation as the other two. Two parts in the merger lawo One, the ( ) must be in single and separate ownership since 1983 as well as ownership and two, and/or had prior to ZBA approval, the Town approval or Planning Board approval. In looking at the criteria for request for a merger, what you've asked for this evening is for us to reverse the decision of the Building Department and to in effect create another eXemption to the Code. If we were not to go that way, would you still be looking at this in terms of a merger law and look at whether or not these lots are in keeping with the other lots in the area with the same size, that criteria? Could you address that criteria? MR~ OLSEN: If we could look at the map that was approved by the Planning Board, you'll see that there are a number of parcels shown on Van Tuyl's map to the west of the subject property, all which appear to be ( ) parcels. So to that extent, these lots that were created were keeping with ( ) size, figuration in terms of square footage of lots to the west of this property. I really didn't address the ( ) of criteria because I think that ( ) impressed the issue and that's why I presented, made the presentation on the basis that decision has been decided by this Board. In the other two cases does not ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does that new subdivision, as directly in back, Mr. Olsen, have town water? Do you know? The new subdivision. MR. OLSEN: Mr. Zevits? All the Zev±ts are here. MR. ZEVITS: Yes. My name is Joe Zevits. I~m from Ft. Lee and my property in Southold since 1964. However, they have their own well. It's a pump house. They supply the Cove Condominiums as well as some other property east of this property and I'm quite sure they're supplying that ) stores area also. :Page 10 - Heari~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'Thank you for answering. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Motion carried. -Page 11 - Hearing' Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:09 P.M. - Appt. ~4510 - LAUREN ALBERTSON CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, based upon the June 19, 1997 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector issued on the following grounds: "in an R-40 District the required front yard setback for a lot loss than 20,000 sq. ft. is 35 feet. The proposed deck addition encroaches on the front yard setback by approximately 9 ft. Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B. Location of Property: 1095 Track Avenue, Cutchogue; County Parcel No. 1000-137-1-26. I have a copy of a survey from John Metzer, the most recent date is April 2, 1997, indicating darker shaded area which includes approximately 10 foot deck on the front of the house and wraps around. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you kindly state your name for the record. MS. ALBERTSON: Lauren Albertson. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? MS. ALBERTSON: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. What would you like to tell us? MS. ALBERTSON: Recently we wanted to put a deck on in front of the house ( ) to the one that's really in bad shape. It definitely needs to be ( ). We thought that it would be (inaudible, static) down on the side (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why 10 feet? MS. ALBERTSON: To cover up tho stoop. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The existing stoop. And in no time is this deck planned to be incorporated within to tho house, in the house at all? It's going to be an open deck, open to the sky at all times? MS~ ALBERTSON: Ceiling? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're not intending to screen it, or roof it, or some day incorporate it into the house? MS. ALBERTSON: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if we say in our decision that you know, you can't screen'it, you can't cover it, you know, that would be OK? MS. ALBERTSON: Yes. ~age 12 - Hearin~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're standing there, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? OK, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later and thank you. We hope to have a decision for you tonight. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Anybody second that please? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. ~age 13 - Heari~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:12 P.M. - Appl. ~4511 - JAMES WEEDEN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (1/2 hr. delay requested by Applicant- late arrival). Is Mr. Weeden presently in the audience? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He's should be here 15 minutes, I hope. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to open the hearing anyway, so I don't have to reread the legal notice. This is a request for a Variance based upon the August 27, 1997, Notice of Disapproveal issued by the Building Inspector on the following rounds: "In an R-40 District accessory buildings ...shall be located in the required rear yard and in the case of a waterfront parcel, accessory buildings and structures may be located in the front yard provided they meet the front yard setback requirements as set forth in ...Art. III, 100-33 and 100-33 C. The proposed pool is located in the side yard." Location of Property: 1175 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue; County Parcel ~1000-118-2-16.1 and 6.2. Mr. Weeden still has not shown up. I'll make a motion recessing the hearing for approximately, I'm sure that Mr. Pachman will be here until 8:00 o'clock, so we'll recess this to 8:00 o'clock. Would somebody second that please. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Page 14 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:14 P.M. - Appl. ~4485-(V) and 4486 - (SE): BELL-ATLANTIC/NYNEX by Richard Weyhreter (Owner: A. Rehm). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Location of Property: 425 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-141-3-34. Applicant is requesting: (a) Special Exception under Article XIV, Section 100-141 (100-31 B-6) for placement of a new tower and building for public utility cellular transmission service, and (b) Variances based upon the Building. Inspector's April 29, 1997, Action of Disapproval, which states that ..... this lot is in an LI Zone District and has a lot area of approximately 13,400 sq. ft." Presently there is an existing building and use. The proposed building and additional use would require a total lot area of. 80,000 sq. ft. in an LI Zone. The proposed construction is required to be set back a minimum of 70 feet from the rear yard and 20 feet from all other lot lines. Zoning Ordinances, Article XIV, Section 100-142 Bulk Area and Parking Regulations. Owner: Adrienne M. Rehm. With have a site plan rather a detail site plan dated January 19, 1997, indicating the approximate placement of the monopole tower and the MR. PACHY~N: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. We brought a Reporter because we weren't sure about your machine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that's right, I'm sorry. MR. PACHMAN: So can she sit over there with you? You don't have any objection? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, not at all. The size of the building is proximity to the property lines and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. (See court reporter's typed transcript of this hearing, made available by Mr. Pachman) Page 15 - Hearin~ITranscripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 9:13 P.M. JAMES WEEDEN (Continued Hearing) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mr. Weeden we're sorry for holding you up for approximately one hour. What would you like to tell us about your lovely house you have up there and the swimming pool you'd like to build. JAMES WEEDEN: We're on an island with four houses. We want to situate the pool far away from the other house ( ) and my three neighbors are all in favor of it. In fact, ( ), and actually in the in front of our house it's, back of our house we have water and the side of the house we have water. The other side of our house ( ) we have-, actually it's the front of our house, but because of the road which is on the side of our house, this is considered you know on the side of our property and-. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no intention of enclosing this at any time, right? This is an open pool? MR. WEEDEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think I asked you that question when I came up. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions of Mr. Weeden? MEMBER DINIZIO: Other than I couldn't find your plot. MR. WEEDEN: You have to go over the bridge. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You go over the bridge. It's the first house on the lefthand side. MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, OK. No, I don't have any questions. It's fairly obvious what you have down there. MR. WEEDEN: Yes, I may be far enough away from the other house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the cottage a functional cottage? MR. WEEDEN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:: OK, while you're standing there, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. ~age 16 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ail in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Page 17 Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 9:17 P.M. - Appi. #4518 - JAMES McALEER CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Application for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A for approval of "as built" location of handicap ramp with raised deck area, and for location of proposed deck addition to existing cottage, based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated August 27, 1997 which reads as follows: "...Being a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use in an R-40 Zone said building shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered unless such building is changed to a conforming use..." Location of Property: 4250 Breakwater Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel ~1000-106-09-1.1. I have a copy of the survey indicating that this is one of 12 structures on this,piece of property. That does not mean that they're all dwellings, one is garage, one is a shower house and the survey I'm reading from is August 12, 1993, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Moore, you'd like to represent? MS. MOORE: Yes, Mr. McAleer is here this evening. Patricia Moore, you know where my office is, 315 Westphalia Road. When we originally applied to the Board, we did not have a survey, we had measurements to this deck. McAleer ( ) that it was his measurement, he believed that he had about 20 feet to the road, which is actually where the road begins. We found coincidentally that someone in my office had represented not in my office, someone in the building represented the owner at one time to acquire this piece and we were able to get the consent from the owner which is also in your file to use their survey to survey in that file, which is the one that you have, so we have an accurate ( ) of all of the structures in the particular cottage 11 which is the subject to this application. When we discovered that the proximity of the structure to the property line it was my advise and Mr. McAleer also concurred that we should be made aware where the decking would go and the new proposal, the then proposal would be to a certainly to get permission for what is already structured which consisted a handicap ramp and decking and then ( ) phased construction, blocked out along the northerly side of the house and the back end of the house so that you create a more usable deck area. That would be a footprint that he could then work off of and he could build as he has money and he has time because all of the construction has been done by him. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're just reflecting a plan which is incorrect which is in the file. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's the old plan? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, this is a plan that actually shows the deck wrapping around to Breakwater Road. It's actually reversed. MS. MOORE: That's the original. Page 18 - Heari~9 Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's actually reversed and now you're reflecting a plan that wraps around to the back of the house. MS. MORE: Yes, correct. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, but that's still part of the file. That's just the old plan. MS. MOORE: Yes, would that be the original one that they're referring? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, that's the original one. MS. MOORE: OK, there was an original one that's one that we then decided it wouldn't work as well as the revised. On the revised, I drew it on the original survey so that it would show on the survey as well as Mr. McAleer drew it - as if he were preparing his own plans. So as I've said, we have Elizabeth Marsicano. She is the underlying owner, she and her husband, Thomas, also gives his consent. I submitted to the Board the Assignment and Assumption of the Lease, a copy of the owner's Deed for the underlying land, and I know that there was a - Mrs. Tortora you had questions about covenants and restrictions which I also composed for you and there is no prohibition granting that. The only limitation being site plan for, typically it's called specs approval plans of spec's by the owner and we did get that, so, that's in your record. The original survey prepared by Young & Young dating back not original pardon me - a Young & Young survey dated 1976 which shows the cabins and the original development which has certain property lines established. However, there is no reference beyond that survey to any limitation by each cabin on the use and area. They've all essentially this whole area is like a small family, and everybody recognizes and appreciates their space, and it is my understanding that everybody in their complex consents - has no opposition obviously to the decking that's being constructed and that which has been composed. For the record there are ne variances on this property at all, but we, when I went looking for previous variance. There are however, two issues that were a, two COs that were issued. One for an addition, 1979 and a CO for decking, 1987. So, it was at the time the Building Department interpreted that these exist, these preexisting structures could be modified to a certain extent with merely a building permit, a CO. There was no need for variances. I believe that they could have taken that interpretation even today. Certainly not if we were going towards the road, because that would be an encroachment on to the property line. But now, with our amended application, we are not going any closer to the road than our existing front a, ( ) property line, front of the house and that squaring it off and going behind the house. So, we have a, I believe the Board could interpret that there is no variance necessary at all because of the location of the structures. Page 19 Hearin~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was an interesting concept by the way. We don't agree. MS. MOORE: You don't agree, alright. That's why I'm here. With that in mind, if you interpret that we need a area variances on the structures that are proposed, I'll give you a little bit of background. I think the last time I was here I very quickly tried to explain why it occurred this way. Mr, McAleer has a, his father is handicapped, he uses a wheelchair, and when he went to the Building Department he explained that he wanted to build a handicap ramp and decking and the Building Department said, alright. There was a typical law school definition of no meeting of the minds° He had one thing in mind and the Building Department had another thing in mind, and when it was actually constructed the Building Department said, oops, that's a little too big and go for a variance° So, that's why the structure that is there today needs to be replaced. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that also why it's not completed without a railing or something? MS. MOORE: Correct. As soon as he found out that there was variances necessary, he stopped. MRS. TORTORA: So, he got a Building Permit for what is there then? (Mr. McAleer responded, (inaudible). So they said OK, you can ( )? MR. McALEER: It was a verbal. Go ahead and do what you have to do~ as long as it's not a problem. (inaudible-static) and try to get a permit. I double checked for a permit. I need an application. MS. MOORE: There was a Building Permit Application filed and there was a check filed with the Building Department and in that time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Was it then subsequently returned? The check still on file? MS. MOORE: Question to Mr. McAleer. Did they return your check? MR° McALEER: They then denied ( ) application. MSo MOORE: Again asking Mr. McAleer if they kept the check. MR. McALEER: They kept the check, they cashed it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They made it out for $25, right? MR. McALEER: They said leave it open, and we would say it's a denial, ) $25 and it would be OK for $75. So, it was denied and then charged for $25. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to pay for a Notice of Denial? Page 20 Hearin~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thought that was free. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, no, two years now. MS. MOORE: You have my standards in the application packet on an area variance and rather than recite everything for you again, I refer back to my application and the fact that we meet all of the area variances criteria. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to go first, Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me get this straight. You went to the Building Department and you said I need to put a ramp because my father is ill. So, they said to you, what? What did they say? MR. McALEER: We sat down and talked and the Building Department said~ you can build that ( ) property, you're not suppose to build on that but that should not be a reason why I can't get into the house. I had staircase fall apart, I just want to fix it. I want to make it nice. MEMBER DINIZIO: So they didn't even require you to get a Building Permit there to construct something on your property? They just told you it was OK? MR. McALEER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And then you went out and purchased lumber and built this. MR. McALEER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: You didn't show them a drawing or anything? MR. McALEER: I told them what I was going to do and he said go ahead and do what you have to do as long as we don't come down as a big problem. Something huge there will be a problem. So,. I took it in good faith. I went down and did what I did~ I tried to make a platform so my dad can move around in a wheelchair. I didn't think I did anything too big. MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't look too big to me. MR. McALEER: Really, what I tried to do, was make it further back, not near the road because I didn't want to bother anybody. Now, all I want to do, is make it nice, a nice piece of property. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean that's not reflected in their paperwork. You know, so, I find that story unbelievable. It's not amusing. Page 21 - Hearing- Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. McALEER: No, it's actually its been disheartening. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, now you have to pay $25 for them to say no to you, or $75 if we so choose. MR. McALEER: Along with the lawyer's fee which I went down by myself with my girlfriend. We tried to do it in good faith and that's what my whole intention was and it kind of back ( ), I can't do this now. What do I now? I want to do everything in the Lemon Law. MS. MOORE: So that you understand why we did it a phased approach. When he and I met, he was very upset obviously and I said, well, lets try to turn this into something positive. Lets see, if you, you're staying in this house, if you decide that you need some space and Some decking what would you like to do in the next five years, ten years? Lets apply now, we'll get a footprint and then over time, you won't have to pay anymore again. You know, it's the same cost for me to stand here and ask for this much then and this much. So, we might as well come in and get as what you want and then over time, you can build it. So, we're here and I, he went home happy that day because at least we could a, if this process was going to be necessary to build a deck around the back, then he might as well do it now and not only deal with handicap ramp but the decking for future decking to make the house comfortable. Who recommended this, his fiancee. That's why you have the phased approach. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, you certainly don't have any objection to us treating this as a variance as opposed to just saying that you could have this by right? MS. MOORE: I having trouble hearing you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you said the Building Inspector, you know, granted this, ( ) an 88 or a deck, something like that. MS. MOORE: 87. MEMBER DINIZIO: And you know that you feel it falls into that but there's still a problem if we just - MS. MOORE: I have no problem here, if you interpret that a variance is necessary. We're here and that's not a problem. My thought was that, when we had initially applied for ( ) road, clearly we needed a variance. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MS. MOORE: Now, we're not going towards any lot line. We are staying within the side and rear yard and it's possible that no variance is necessary. That's an option you have after you've Page 22 - Hearin9 Transcripts October 9~, 1997 - Board of Appeals considered it, but we're here if you interpret that these cottages require variances in order to place a deck here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are interpreting. MSo MOORE: Well Mr. Dinizio was asking. So, two out of three interpreted. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well let me, let me ask you this question then. I'm asking you professionally. If we chose to look at this as a variance, what verifications does it have? I mean, let's say for the rest of the houses on this lot, does, I mean does it have, you know I was treating this, cause to me, you know we would treat this as a lot and your grant is a lot of stuff on this lot. If a person came in and this was the only house on this lot, they wouldn't be here. I don't believe they would be. They would -o MS. MooRE: Well it appears to me is residential. You have structures that are preexisting nonconforming structures, to the extent that they expand and create greater nonconformity. That's why I think they say, a variance is necessary. My theory is, that the nonconformity would be towards lot lines, not towards the center. So, if all of these cottages were decks within the center a dome impact on the towards the perimeter of the property they're still within as an accessory structure anybody can build a deck onto their house as long as it meets setbacks. MEMBER DINiZIO: Certainly lot coverage and all that would come into, come into play. MS. MOORE: This is almost akin to a condominium. I mean it's not condominium ownership here, but it's an internal development and as long as you don't encroach towards the sideyards and impact adjacent properties~ then variances should not be necessary. I think that's why the Building Department on two occasions interpreted an expansion of the cottage as well as a decking addition without variances. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, so, I mean, if these were separate lots then - MS. MOORE: If these~were separate lots - MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, then, then, naturally they'd be - MS. MOORE: That if they went towards the sideyards that were not conforming, then you would need a variances. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, OK, I understand. MS. MOORE: But this is a philosophical question. Page 23 - Heari~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I could address this issue but, I'm going to let Mrs. Tortora do it, because this is a file that is assigned to her, which doesn't make any difference cause we were both over there together. Go ahead Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I believe the reason why you saw a CO issued in 87 and 79 was because the provision that a nonconforming shall not be expanded, et cetera , et cetera, (static). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was really a 50% rule prior to that. MS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright? MEMBER TORTORA: 89 that was wiped out. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we won't argue that now. MS. MOORE: I didn't have that code. MEMBER TORTORA: I just learned that too. MS. MOORE: Did you? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MS. MOORE: I would like them to put it back in the Code because I think it creates such a hardship. MEMBER TORTORA: The second thing is, that we can have a, Jerry and I had occasion this afternoon to talk to the Building Department regarding this application in a formal way and a the story that we were given, does not jive with your story as far as going to the Building Department being told that it was OK, and then going ahead and building it and was told it wasn't. So, this is why I ask you, if he said it was OK, then I think you should of build it right there on the spot, and when you were constructing the deck then the Building Permit would have been right there. CHAIRMAN GOENRINGER: We know that you're allowed to have 30 sq. ft. exempt° Certainly, a wheelchair ramp is larger than 30 sq. ft. MEMBER TORTORA: And a 9 x 12 deck is larger than 30 sq. ft. MS. MOORE: Well, he didn't have any a, keep in mind that the Building Permit, I think my only criticism was that when he sat down had he been directed listen if you go out 30 feet and if you go down as a ramp you're OK, because I think that the way the Code reads is that if you can protrude 30 feet out - Page 24 ' Hearing/Transcripts · October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, 30 sq. ft. MS. MOORE: 30 sq. ft. - excuse me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 5 x 6. MS. MOORE: Yes, 5 x 6, but if you have stairs, we have a ramp, I don't think that that would ( ) the Code ( ) would differentiate between stairs and a ramp. Plus, the ADA Rules, I mean your, your making any kind of accessibility. I think had he been given a little more direction, he would have known, Oh, OK, then I can only build this, this is what I'm going to do. I think there was just a lack of communication there. It's nobody's fault you know, I think that MEMBER DINIZIO: We didn't say there was. MS. MOORE: No, no, we're not blaming anybody. We just want you to know that it's not a self imposed hardship, typical self imposed hardship, it was a lack of understanding on both parts what he wanted to do, and what the Building Department could of given him a little more direction so he wouldn't be here today. But, that's water under the bridge and here we are° MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things. The (static) ramp° MS. MOORE: I'm having trouble hearing you, I'm sorry~ MEMBER TORTORA: The square footage, what is the total square footage on the as built deck ramp? MS. MOORE: I don't have that off the top of my head. Is it on the original drawing? Take a look at the original. This point your paper work is more complete than mine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's approximately 10 x 13. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's roughly 108 sq. ft., right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have it as 9 x 12, but we measured it physically, with the decking itself it's approximately 10 x 13. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That would be 130 sq. ft.? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. MOORE: 10 x 13 actually? We'll confirm that if you say so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In that range. MEMBER TORTORA: It's rough. You see, the thing that struck me is that a couple of things, - Page 25 - Hearin~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're having trouble again. MEMBER TORTORA: Is the mike on? MS. MOORE: No, It doesn't matter, I can hear you, just speak a little louder. MEMBER TORTORA: The cottage, the seasonal summer cottage is about 352 sq. ft., right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: According to the information you have given us - MS. MOORE: Yes, 16 x 22. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 16.4 x 22.4. MS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: It's about 352 sq. ft. MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: The total addition that you are proposing, including the as built deck, come to over 445 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It exceeds the size of the cottage by over 100 sq. ft. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. MS. MOORE: Well, to a certain extent when he was measuring out this decking there is a concrete and retaining wall and the topography of the property really starts to decline very steep. So, his decking if I remember we were measuring as you were standing there, thinking OK, I can bring the decking to where the topography height gets to a reasonable levels. Otherwise you're going to have unusable area because the decking is going to a one level, (Am I correct, Jim? Response, right). The decking that's built, been built is going to be one level, but because of the retaining wall and the topography of the land, the second phase is going to be elevated to a certain extent, ramped up elevated. So, it will be like a second platform area. MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things. (static) seasonal cottages (static) they are not seasonal cottages (too much static, inaudible) MS. MOORE: Well, this is not a covered area, this is decking. I mean even seasonal dwellings have decks that - Page 26 - Hearin9 Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Oh, I understand that but you a, in your presentation you discussed using the new 445 sq. ft. of decking as a footprint. MS. MOORE: Oh, no, no. OK, no, the footprint for him to build the decking, not for new structure being expansion of the buildings. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, one of the things that you know, this is probably, I ask (static) any other place in Southold, (static)° MS. MOORE: Actually, ten units because one is a shower and one is a cottage. But, if you look at the house next door they've done some similar changes, modifications, that doesn't look seasonal, that looks nice, sturdy, winterized cottage. So, I mean, MEMBER TORTORA: (static) MS. MOORE: The one right next to it. MEMBER TORTORA: Which one? MS. MOORE: On the road. The one that has the actual framed garage° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They actually (static) seasonal cottage. The only one that doesn't is the house that encroaches on the next door neighbor's property in the back° It looks like a little ramp. MEMBER TORTORA: That's a little larger space. The air space that's designated on this map is about 3~000 sq. fto and you have to say to yourself, at what point are you addressing the issues of lot coverage? At what point are you addressing the issues of parking? At what point, how far do you want to go? MS. MOORE: I'm trying to do something so that if this application isn't as painful as it can be. OK, so, if it require a, and certainly the deck is (static). If the Board wants to cutback some of the decking, you know, he hasn't built it, so if the Board says, that you can have only another 300 sq. ft. of decking - MEMBER TORTORA: Almost the size of the cottage. MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: You have to put a railing on the deck, (too much static, inaudible) MS. MOORE: Oh, no, he planned to. MR. McALEER: I wanted to, but I got stopped and I didn't know what to do. I didn't want to do anything I wasn't supposed to do. Page 27 - Hearing~'Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: And the other thing that Jerry and I saw when we were looking at the existing decking (static) - MR. McALEER: Well I started to build that wall, which I haven't done. My dad hasn't been out there because I wasn't able to use it. So, the whole summer pretty much for him haS been nothingj you know, not coming out. MEMBER TORTORA: (Static) we couldn't figure out how you could (static) around to the ramp without trouble, just to walk - MS. MOORE: No, he, he, stopped really. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's not done yet. MS. MOORE: No, it's not. He stopped, he didn't want to go in violation of building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the Notice of Disapproval is very simply, it says, constructed deck with a ramp. It doesn't include all of the other ( ) you're referring to. MS. MOORE: No, no, I had gone over to the Building Department and said, if you modify the decking which as it turned out was the original modification because the second one was, (static) of any encroachment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, what you're saying then is, the Notice of Disapproval is generic area. MS. MOORE: Yes, and the Building Department said, no, it didn't matter what decking, it was going to be the same disapproval, so (static)° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you and this goes back to the days of Bob Tasker. It would be unkind of me to tell you that we were really in favor of anything except what is there. Quite honest, I'm talking about me, OK. I don~t know how Lydia feels about it. But, only because of some of the things that she had cited just recently, OK, and yQu know, if situation change in the future, then we'll deal with it, alright, but, we are not particularly in favor, I mean, I don't think that we have a particular contest of what exists there now, OK. But, we do have a problem with the entire community as a whole in general and the extension of decks over the entire community which is not before us, but you have to understand that there are lot, I mean I know you understand, your a past Town Attorney and so on and so forth, and I'm not saying this in a patronizing way. I'm just saying to you, that we are concerned about lot coverage for the entire community, and that's basically my opinion and Lydia will answer to you and that's basically it. So, I'm not necessarily in favor of the phasing aspects, OK, this time. ~age 28 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: (Too much static) the applicants knew at the time they purchased the property that (static). MS. MOORE: Well, seer I think decking is purely summer time, during the seasonal period. MEMBER TORTORA: (static) what you're proposing is it's, it's, and I don't mean to be (static) over to their air space. Let's call it air space, (static) and one of the biggest problems with the whole concept (static) for any of the twelve structures (static). MS. MOORE: Well, my thought was that you already have a concrete lot retaining wall, concrete slab, which is essentially (static) Some of this is just, I mean to me, (static) decking around the property. find that to be aesthetic pleasing than the concrete slab that's there presently and he could, I mean and the Code actually reads that you could be brick or concrete, or any kind of material around. So, to me the decking is an accessory structure that should ( ), is a prefer method of useable space than even brick and concrete, particular where you have handicap person that unless you use poured concrete other materials create difficulty. The material he's used is (too much static). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there we'll ask if anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? OK, so I guess we'll go into deliberation later and see what (static), OK, we thank you for the presentation, it's a pleasure meeting you Sir. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who wants to second that motion please? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I~ll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Ayes. Page 29 - Hearing'Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 9:48 P.M. - Appl. #4513 SARAH WICKHAM GICALE CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's July 8, 1997, Notice of Disapproval, a Variance is requested to erect that portion of proposed fence which will exceed the four-ft, height requirement within or along a front yard area, Article XXIII, Section 100-231 (A). Property Location: 160 East Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; County Parcel ~1000-110-7-17. I have a copy of the survey from Roderick Van Tuyl, dated July 22, 1986, indicating the penned in area of the fence that the applicant requested and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you state your name for the record. MS. GICALE: My name is Sarah Gicale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MS. GICALE: I'd like to say that my understanding (too much static) and it's difficult (static) but, where I would like to erect a fence is on the driveway because (static) and that fence would be in back of two pieces of property that are next to (static) So, if you were to call my front yard it's really back yard to these two pieces of property. The reason I want to erect the fence is (static) not necessarily (too much static). There's a continue problem with kids there, drinking, with drugs, and police and my property (static) taking things ( ) to my house. I'm just trying to do something about it. My neighbors ( ) that own, rent out~ One building the closest to (static) say about it. I really don't know what else to do. (static) cutting through my property. I know they do. My other neighbor, when I called him and told him what this hearing is about, said to me that's a good idea, I'm constantly chasing kids out of your yard. (Too much static) So, I guess what I'm trying to tell you is (static) and I'm just trying to (static). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A 4 foot fence isn't going to do it, is that what you're telling us? MS0 GICALE: I don't believe so. I don't think so. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the distance of the 6 foot (static), total distance? MS. GICALE: (static) Well, initially it would be 4 foot fence graded up to a 6 foot fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It says 40 feet. MEMBER ~ORTORA: 40 feet, is that correct? ,MS. GICALE: Yes. Page 30 - Hearin9 Transcripts October 9, 1997 Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: 40 feet, that's 4 feet high and 95 feet (static)? MS. GICALE: Yes, and then it continues. I mean that would drop down and I would say theirs still continue properly up to the Bay. I didn't want to continue all the way up. I didn't think the neighbors (static) would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said most of the penetration is on the corner of East Road and Fleets Neck Road, over that part? MSo GICALE: (Inaudible, static) So, they,re obviously in the habit of doing that. I've told my new tenant should they, she was using the stairs, I don't believe she is now, (static) they're a lot of people out there and (static). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Sir, just state your name for the record. MR. JESSUP. My name is John Jessup. I own a house (static) on the road side. On the front side. I have no qualms about a 4 foot fence. I put a fence on the other side (static) I put a fence up with a ( ) between the houses. They would have to walk all the way down on the other people's property to (static) and the 0erson that is there now, doesn't have any children. (inaudible-static MEMBER TORTORA: Is that your only objection? MR. JESSUP: What's that? MEMBER TORTORA: Your only objection is a 6 ~oot fence because you don't think it will work? MR. JESSUP: (static) Whether it was a 2 foot, 6 foot or 10 foot, you (inaudible) the other side. (inaudible) CHAIR~iAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. Anybody else like to speak against? MRS. JESSUP: Yes, I would. My name is Ethel Jessup. There once was a problem down with the youngsters in the house on the corner. They have since moved. But, I feel that aside from that, I think it's a little bit into discrimination inasmuch as there's two other neighbors whose property adjoins theirs. Now there will be no fence° So, they're being singled out purposely for possibly, annoyances from other homes where there were children, when I don't feel it was ( ) involvement. If our tenant is using and trespassing, surely we're going to put a stop to that. There's no question. I did not know she was doing this until just a day or two ago° What a 4 foot fence, it's (static). Page 31 - Hearin~ Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mrs. Jessup. Anybody else? Would you happen to have your affidavit of mailing? Could we have that please. Thank you very much. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. Page 32 - Hearin¥ Transcripts · October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals 10:00 P.M. - Appl. ~4515 - TIMOTHY McNALLY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Application requesting a Variance, based upon the Building Inspector's two Notices of Disapproval: (1) dated August 8, 1997, which states: "...under Article XXIV, Section 100-242B the nonconforming old tin garage with a conforming use (has been replaced with a new wood structure) shall not be rebuilt or repaired if it has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than 50% of its value until the building is made to conform to the required height and yard requirements...", and (2) Amendment dated September 8, 1997, which added the following: "...under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A. a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use shall not be altered, enlarged, or structurally reconstructed unless such building is changed to a conforming use...". Applicant's project is for a deck addition to accessory cottage, and accessory storage building at 945 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, N.Y.; 1000-137-4-23. MR. MCNALLY: I'm here tonight to tell you, that when I bought the property three years ago, I bought it "As Is ( ). There's no bank involved. To my knowledge, there was permits for everything except the deck. ( ) is built, to my knowledge, 1937. The house which I live in right now I don't know exactly when it was built, when the deck was built or when the garage was in the basement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just for my own personal knowledge, when was the garage which is really an old time garage, which is really like a storage building, when was that actually raised? MR. McNALLY: Raised? I think it was done 3 years ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was reconstructed 3 years ago? MR. McNALLY: Right. It's a prefab building and a (static). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And at presently is 4 inches from property line, at its closest point? MRo McNALLY: I don't think it is. It looks like on the survey it is like that. But, if you look on that wetland there, there is a pipe sticking straight up. If you follow that pipe going straight, (static) pipe shape area, the property itself, to me it looks like it's over 4 feet. Why on the survey it looks like 4 inches to me is (static). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .I couldn't tell to be honest with you. Page 33 - 51earing Transcripts October 9, 1997 ~Board of Appeals MR. McNALLY: No, I looked at ( static) a couple of times and I did, you know, from the wetlands itself, (static) pipe, straight up. I see where the rock, that there's like a little rock garden in the front also. It looks like it's at least 4 feet to the left of going to the right of the garage also. CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: And the deck has no intentions of being enclosed, is that correct? MR. McNALLY: No. I use the property just really 4 months of the season. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I notice that the driveway appears to be common driveway between the two houses, does anybody else have a right-of-wa!; over that driveway? MR, McNALLY: The grey house is for their own and I guess ( ) and mine is to my driveway. So, there is two different driveways to that property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, there are? MEMBER TORTORA: Bluestone ( ) goes to the - MR. McNALLY: It's not Blue Stone anymore, it's more like that reddish rock, ( ) the house and then the other driveway goes to ( CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are both these year round structures, or are they just? MR. McNALLY: Yes they are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You rent the other one? MR. McNALLY: Yes we do. CHAIRMAN McNALLY: And you don't rent yours? MR. McNALLY: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: OK, we'll go on with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other further questions Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts October 9, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? I don't have any other thoughts. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just want to mention that the Building Inspector is going to send a letter saying that they were eligible for a Pre-CO. We were suppose to get that letter today and we didn't get it. I haven't seen it anyway. Hopefully in the next day or two we'll have it. I don't know if they're going to need it, but I'm just mentioning it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, hearing no further questions, thank you for coming in, we hope to have a decision for you. I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED. End of hearings. Transcript prepared by Lucia Farrell and printed 10/24/97. 3 APPLICANT: BELL-ATLANTIC/NYNEX, by Pachman, Pachman & Brown, P.C. (Owner: A. Rehm), 4 Location of Property: 425 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Parcel No. 1000-141-3-34. 5 RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: (a) Special Exception under Article XIV, Section 100-141 (100-31B-6) 6 for placement of a new tower and building for public utility cellular transmission service, 7 and (b) Variances based upon the Building Inspector's April 29, 1997 Action of 8 Disapproval, which states that"...this lot is in an LI Zone District and has a lot area of 9 approximately 13,400 square feet Presently there is an existing building and use. The 10 proposed building and additional use would require a uotal lot area of 80,000 square feet tl in an LI Zone. The proposed construction is required to be sec back a minimum of 70 feet 12 from the rear yard and 20 feeu from all other lot lines. Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, 13 Section 100-142 Bulk Area and Parking Re~ulations. Owner: Adrienne M. Rehm. 14 .............................................. X 15 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Street 16 Southotd, New York 17 October 9, !997 7:15 p.m. 18 19 B E F 0 R E: The Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 2O 21 22 23 RAM COURT .REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-31~8 t A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 Town Board: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 3 Linda Kowa!ski, Court Secretary Lydia A. Tortora 4 James Dinzio, Jr. 5 PACHMA_N, PACHMAN & BROWN, P.C. 6 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 7 BY: MATTHEW E. PA~HN3kN, ESQ. & HOWARD PAC.~, SR., ESQ. 8 9 SAVK & MI/R_RAY, DANIEL FALASCO, P.C. Consulting Engineers !0 11 PHILIP CN~ARAI,LEL, R.F. ENGIkYEER BELL-ATLJLNTIC R-fNEX MOBILE 12 COM/VFgNI CAT i ONS 13 LOUIS CORNACCH!A 14 Scinetics Corp. New Rochelle, NY 15 16 JOPL~ BRESLIN, SR. Brestin Appraisal Co. 17 18 SUBMISSION OF F/AEL~DENTHAL & ELKOWITZ CONSULTING GROUP, INC., report dated 19 May '97 entitled Visual Impact Analysis Proposed Public Utility 20 Structure, Mastituck, New York 21 J. LANCE MkLLAMO 22 Historic Preservation Consultant 23 24 25 P~24 COURT .REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3168 3 i Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 MR. H. PACFIM_A_N: I think by now 3 you know my name is Howard Pachman from 4 the firm of Pachman, Pachman & Brown, 5 366 Veterans Memorial Kighway, Commack, 6 New York, and co-counsel is Matthew E. 7 Pachman. We are the attorneys for Bell 8 Atlantic Mobile. By the way, as a 9 result of the merger the new name of 10 the mobile company is Bell Atlantic 11 Mobile and the telephone company is 12 Bell Atlantic by itself. The site that 13 we are -- 14 CF~I~V~ANGOEHRINGER: i should 15 point out to you that if anybody in the 16 audience wants to see any of the 17 graphics we'd be very happy to recess 18 so you can look at it. 19 MR. K. PACTqM~: The site is 425 20 Westphalia Road, and if you look at the 21 are5 i have here, I have small ones 22 here for the members of the Board. 23 (Whereupon copies were given to 24 members of the Board.) 25 I MR. H. PACHSCAN: .~d as evidence, _TLAM CO%~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 4 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 in Mattituck. This is Middle Road here 3 going east and west, then you've got 4 the Long Island Railroad going east and 5 wesu, and here you've gou Main Road 6 going east and wesu. This site is 7 starting at Middle Road down Westphalia 8 to Sound Avenue which goes east and 9 wesu. The pro]ecu location is this 10 yellow area here, and it's an L shaped 11 parcel. The parcel here au the 12 intersection of Long Island Railroad 13 and Westphalia is the Inland Homes 14 Building, and we will describe the 15 surrounding sites. The owner of this 16 properuy is Mr. Rehm, and he's here 17 uonlght, as is Adrierhne Rehml The site 18 is 1500 s_c/uare feet, and it's really 19 what we are using, and the site we are 20 utilizing is 30 feet by 50 feet and we 21 will fence in the area as we normally 22 do. 23 with the proposed construction of 24 this Bell tower here, rather than a 25 re_cu!ar cell tower - and I have some RAM. COL~-~T REPCRTING SERVICE {5!6) 727-3168 5 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 pictures that I will take out here so 3 you can see what it's like - this is a 4 simulated photograph of the tower 5 superimposed. This is the Inland Homes 6 here. We show you one with the standard 7 monopote which we would normally use 8 which we have in our Cutchogue site, 9 and the one we are proposing here is t0 this tripod three legged Bell tower. 11 MS. TORTOP~A: Can I just see 12 that? i can't see that far away. 13 MR. H. PACTqMAN: Sure. 14 C~AIRM~ GOE_~L~INGER: Is this the 15 typical Bell tower that you would see 16 if Bell Nynex Mobile were constructing 17 a Bell tower? 18 Mt{. H. PACP24AN: Yes. !9 CF_AIRMAN GOEFIRINGER: Are there 20 any changes to this Bell tower? 21 ~VfR. H. PACHMAN: We're going to 22 give you the specs to this tower, when 23 Mr. Fa!asco testifies, but this is the 24 tower that we're talking about. So you 25 see, it's a simulated photograph, it's P_~M CO~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 6 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 been superimposed on a standard 3 photograph, of Westphalia and that 4 intersection, and you see the one on 5 the left is the single monopole, and 6 the one on the right is the Bell 7 tower. If you look at it from the 8 opposite end almost where the bank is, 9 it's the other side around. You can 10 see what a monoDole would look like, 11 and you would see what the Bell mower 12 looks like with the trees. Ms. Theresa 13 Elkowitz, from Freudenthal & Elkowitz 14 Consulting, will testify as ~o that 15 when the tame comes. 16 There will also be an unmanned 17 equipmen~ building 12 feet by 40 feet, 18 and the reason that this building is 12 19 feet by 40 feet rather than 12 feet by 20 20 feet, is so that there can be a 21 fumure co-location. If we are going mo 22 be on that site ourselves, we would 23 normally pum up a 12 foot by 20 foot 24 building, but because of ~he 25 Telecommunications Act, proposed PJ~M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 7 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 legislation that the town is 3 contemplating under local law, they 4 would prefer co-location. So we are 5 going to the 12 feet by 40 feet site as 6 the e~aipment st~acture building. The 7 public hearing is being called because 8 under the existing statute which is 9 under existence now in which you must 10 and are giving us a hearing is that we 11 are a special permit under 141 B. The 12 zoning of this particular site is Light 13 industrial Zoner and as you know under 14 Light industrial, this is a permitted 15 use as a special permit under the 16 zoning as it exists today. 17 Also, by the way, this is a 18 permitted use as a telephone exchange. 19 Now~ we do believe that we are a 20 telephone exchange. This Board in the 21 past -- we don't agree with their 22 decision -- held that we are a not a 23 telephone exchange, but I think the law 24 since that time has changed and we do 25 comply with it, but for the purposes of ~ COL~T RE~ORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 8 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 presenting this application, we're 3 going in as a special permit. The 4 standards for a special permit in this 5 particular zone says that, no building, 6 and it's not the same by the way, as mn 7 the residential district, it's not the 8 same. The standards here are even 9 less. A~d this says, "No building or 10 premzses shall be used and no building 11 or part of building shall be erected or 12 altered which ms arranged, intended or 13 designed to be used in the following 14 way or Dart, except those pezTaitted by 15 special permit by the Board of Appeals 16 hereinafter provided." Now, That 17 section says -- I'll give you that in a 18 second, sir, I~!l locate it. A public 19 utility is a special permit that mee~s 20 a conditionally snared use. The term 21 public utility as defined by the Public 22 Service Law which we have nestified in 23 Das~ hearings, we comply with the 24 Public Service law. We also comply 25 with the Tax Law l~6-A which says we RA_M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 9 i - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 are a public utility and we are in 3 conference -- 4 RESIDENT: Could you talk into 5 there so i can hear you? 6 (Whereupon the equipment was 7 adjusted.) 8 MR. H. PACFLMAN: As I said, we are 9 a public utility, and as defined by 10 Public Service Law and Tax Law, and we 11 are a public utility as decided by this 12 Board in two cases, 4062 and 4058. One 13 which was a Nynex applicaticn, and one 14 which was a cell phone, CetluarOne AT&T 15 application, and also in the case 16 4023. So we qualify by definition and 17 interpretation of this particular Board 18 as a public utility. The requirement 19 than we have no establish because of 20 the nature of this application is to 21 also require two variances that we 22 need, well, three, one is a height 23 variance although i will not go over 24 nhat issue again whether I'm required 25 to go for a height variance, but at RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 10 t Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 least this Board again by 3 interpretation has said that a cell 4 phone tower requires a height 5 variance. Our height variance is from 6 the 37 feet -- wait a second, is from 7 35 feet to 99 feet Is our height 8 variance. We need a -- because of the 9 size of the building being 12 feet by t0 20 feet we need a setback variance of 11 70 feet ~o 36.25 feet =~nd a side yard 12 variance from 20 feet to t5 feet. 13 I have some small charts which 14 will shew you where the varmances are, 15 and you will see they're marked in 16 yellow. The 36.25 fee~ variance is the 17 rear yard variance, and the 15 feet is 18 mhe side yard variance, and obviously 19 the height variance 35 ~eem to 99 20 feet. The parcel, although it's in LI 21 Industrial Zone which under today's 22 interpretation of zoning be a 40,000 23 sqare foot parcel, this parcel has been 24 in single and separate ownership since 25 the required ordinance cf 1953, and we R3AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3168 11 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 have submitted to you, I have copies 3 here of a certification from the 4 Chicago Title Company which certifies 5 to the Board that this particular 6 parcel in the name of Adrienne Rehm has 7 been in single and separate ownership 8 since 1953. You'll see the prior 9 owners are listed on each one of the t0 pages, so therefore, that requirement 11 which would suggest that we are in a 12 40,000 square foot zone is minimized 13 and obviated by the fact that we are 14 single and separate ownership, so the 15 only thing we have to do is show that 1~ the normal standard variances I just 17 discussed with you, the height, rear 18 variance and side yard. 19 Now, we have as witnesses tonight 20 Mr. Dan Falasco who has testified 21 before this Board before; Mr. Philip 22 Charallel, who did not testify before 23 this Board before, but was the 24 supporting affidavit in the Orient 25 application which was the second ~ COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516} 727-3168 12 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 affidavit; Mr. Louis Cornacchia from 3 Scinetics who uatks about the RF 4 Engineermng; We have Mr. John Breslin, 5 Senior here on the left, who is 6 substituting for Junior who appeared at 7 the last hearing; and we have Ms. Terry 8 Elkowitz who is our SEQRA and visual 9 impacn individual; and we have lastly 10 Mr. Lance Mallamo who ms our historic 1t preservation consultant and we will 12 certify, qualify him for the purpose of 13 submitting his testimony. 14 At this point, I will mum the 15 application over to Matt Pachman, and 16 what we're gozng to do hopefully, ms 17 since you heard most of the witnesses 18 describing what has to be done, we'll 19 just give you the highlights of what 20 the issue is as it pertains to ~his 21 particular site, and submit an 22 affidavit 5o the full testimony so we 23 don'T have 5o be redlm~dant, if that's 24 acceptable to the chai~man? 25 C}IAI~AN GOEHRiNGER: Acceptable. .RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE 516) 727-3168 13 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 MR. ~i PACHMA2~: ! know you have 3 other hearings and I know we take a lot 4 of time, but we still have to make our 5 application. There are two things I 6 would like to give you. One we would 7 normally talk about which is the facts 8 concerned with Bell Atlantic Nynex~ and 9 the several law cases which pertain to 10 how the courts upheld ce!luar towers to 11 be, and those are submitted as exhibits 12 as part of being for ease of testimony 13 and for ease of concern. 14 RESIDENT: Can I see that before 15 he takes it down? 16 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sure. 17 (Whereupon some residents came up to !8 view the E~mhibit and a two minute 19 recess 20 was taken.) 21 MR. M. PACMMAN: ~nat I seem to 22 have picked up before, 100-14!B, it's a 23 use permitted by special exception in 24 the Long Isi~ud Light industrial area 25 is just the term public utility -~ C©%-~T EEPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 t - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 structures and uses. There's no 3 coupling of the language. It's very 4 simple, just defined as being a public 5 utility. That's the only requirement, 6 we so define ourselves and have to meet 7 the law as a public utility. That's 8 what I was trying to distinguish 9 between that and the residential 10 portion. I gave you the hand ups. !1 There was a question raised. I'm going 12 to hand up at this point for this 13 particular application our public 14 service commisszon certificates and FCC 15 certificates so you have them to look 16 a~ for this application. So they're in 17 evidence. 18 Okay. I will now turn this part 19 of the meeting over to Matthew Pachman 20 and he'll take you through the rest of 21 it. 22 Oh, I found the other thing I was 23 looking for. You raised a question of 24 if we get any permission or consenn 25 from the Long Island Railroad because P~A~ COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 15 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 we were adjacent to it. We already 3 sent that in to you, a letter, July 4 18th, and they have no objection to 5 erection of the tower. They only 6 require that during the course of 7 construction that they be put on notice 8 so that while they are rulkning trains 9 through, everything will be coordinated 10 and we usually do that. There was also 1! an issue raised by the Planning 12 Department as to are there any overhead 13 wires which would be adversely affected 14 with this pole and~V~r. Fa!asco would 15 testify that as far as the height of 16 the tower and if it could fall, and it 17 won't fall because we have 18 certifications for that, there's no 19 wires within the 99 feet which would be 20 adversely affected by it, so we've 21 answered that ~aestion. I think all 22 the bases that you have asked us for we 23 have touched base with. Thank you. 24 MR. M. PACtL~J~Y: Mr. Chairman, 25 then if that's the case, I'll move on. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 t Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 Firstly, we do have a report by Louis 3 Carl%acchia the electrical engineer. He ~ was qualified previously before this 5 Board. If you want, I can go through. 6 He has prepared a report which I would 7 like to hand up and enter in evidence, 8 and the conclusion of the reporm is 9 that the radiofrequency of this tower 10 will be hundreds of thousands times 1t below standards as promulgated by the 12 FCC. Z would also like to hand up a 13 certification from the manufacturer of 14 the Bell mower, Engineer Endeavors 15 Incorporated, and it's sz~ned and 16 sealed and that states that it has been 17 desi?ned mo withstand a continuous wind 18 load capacity of more than 85 miles an 19 hour. 20 C~LAiFJ~3~N GOEHRINGE~: You have a 21 question, you have a question? 22 MR. BOUFFA_RD: Yes. He mentioned 23 the Bell mower, and you're proposing 24 the other tower, aren't you? 25 MR. K. PA~N: No. sir. We're ~ COURT .~EPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 17 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 proposing the Bell tower. 3 RESIDENT: What's the tower to the 4 right? 5 MR. M. PACHM3tN: This is the Bell 6 tower, sir. (indicating) 7 MR. M. PACHM3kN: Now~ moving on. 8 I wonder - that's a good point, Mr. 9 Chairman - are there any questions from 10 the Board with respect to these !1 documents? 12 C~_Ai~WLAN GOEI{RINGER: No. Of 13 course, if there are, we'll ask. 14 .MR. M. PACF~4Aiq: Because we have 15 the people here. 16 We do have Mr. Charallel, the 17 radio frequency engineer from Bell 18 Atlantic Mobile, and we do have an 19 affidavit from him with his 20 qualifications, background and 21 experience. I will submit that, and 22 attached to that are smaller copies of 23 this that I'm referring to now, to the 24 Board, and as you can see this shows 25 the existing cell coverage in the RAM C0~-RT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 18 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 Mattituck area. The blue is where 3 there is coverage. The white is where 4 there is no coverage, and you can see 5 there are gaps, there are service 6 deficiencies in the region, and again 7 annached in Exhibit B which is 8 underneath, again is in Mr. Charallel's 9 affidavit, shows that with the proposed 10 Mattituck site, that white area is 11 eliminated, and the affidavit says on 12 page 8. 13 MR. K. PACrlMAN: Give him that 14 one, and here (exchanging documents). 15 MR. M. PAC~mL~N: Sure. That there 16 is a serious gap in Bell Atlantic 17 Mobile's cell telephone area in the 18 Mattituck area that the gap is 19 evidenced by the inability to transmit 20 or receive calls and so forth, and that 21 prevents Bell no the cell coverage no 22 the public and private users including 23 police, fire, ambulance and emergency 24 response personnel, and if you recall, 25 there are certain mandanes by the FCC RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE 516) 727-3i68 19 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 and New York State Public Service 3 Commission with respect to Bell 4 Atlantic Mobile as a public utility to 5 render that seamless coverage. 6 MS. KOWALSKI: Can I took at 7 Exhibit t? 8 MR. M. PACHMAN: Sure. 9 CHAIRM~ GOEHRINGER: Did this 10 gentleman testify for us the last 1i time? 12 .MR. M~ PACHMA_N: He provided an t3 affidavit. If you want, I can go 14 throuch the qualifications, his CV, his 15 resume is attached. 16 C~AI~M~_NGOEHRINGER: No. That's 17 okay. 18 ~R. H. PACq~L~N: Again, A is this 19 one over here, this is Sound Avenue, is 20 your shore line, here's the gap area. 21 See all this gap area is picked up, 22 this is all filled in here. 23 MS. TORTORA: So the white area is 24 the exisuin? gaps? 25 .~R. H. PACIAMAN: Yes. These are RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (5t6) 727-3168 20 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 the gaps existing, and which will be 3 picked up in Riverhead as proposed. 4 MR. M. PAC~qMAN: We have a service 5 deficlency in this white area, and 6 agamn this white area here with the 7 proposed Mattituck site, we can see how 8 the service deficiency is eliminated. 9 MR. H~ PACHMAN: That's set forth 10 in his affidavit, their exhibit A and B 1I in the affidavit. 12 CHAIR24A_N GOEHRINGER: Right 13 MR. M. PACHMA~N: At this mime, I 14 would ask Mr. Falasco to testify. 15 Again, he did testify au the lasu 16 hearing and that he be allowed no 17 testify again. 18 (Whereupon CP~irman Goehringer 19 swears witness in). 20 CMAi~ GOEMRINGER: State your 21 name. 22 MR. FALASCO: Daniel Falasco. 23 CPtAIR~-ANGOEHRiNGER: Thar~you. 24 MR. FALASCO: We're doing the same 25 thing. Here is a summary of the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 21 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 report, but i would bring your 3 attention to the last three ex~hibits 4 which I believe will more clearly 5 define some of the things we have been 6 talking about. 7 Exhibit A -- Appendix A - I'm 8 sorry - shows the Bell tower. That is 9 the engineered version of what it would 10 look like. As you can see, it's a 11 three sided tower. The anter~as 12 themselves will be behind the 13 fiberglass curtain, and that's why you 14 will not see the antennas themselves. 15 It's 99 feet in height and basically 16 one of the differences between this and 17 the monopole, the tripod that was on 18 top of the tower that was 10 feet by 10 19 feet by !0 feet, this is 12 feet by 12 20 feet by 12 feet, so from that point of 21 view, it is slightly a larger ground 22 area. I wanted to bring that to your 23 attention. 24 Appendix B, I believe Matt has 25 already handed up, it's part of my RAM COL~RT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 22 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 report, it's the Engineer Endeavors. 3 They are the designers of the tower, 4 and they go through the design criteria 5 and basically they would address all 6 the commenns as far as structure itself 7 goes. 8 Appendix C is prob~=bty more 9 important from the point of view, I 10 think it more defines our varlances 11 which Koward has gone over. We show t2 just south of inland Homes Inc., our 12 13 feet by 40 feet structure. That's 14 right here~ To the south of that would 15 be where we would locate the Bell 16 ~ower. And the variances associated 17 with that are; we need this yard 18 varmance here for the recuired 20 feet 19 co the dimension shown that's 15 feet. 20 That's show~ here. We have already the 21 existmng 20 fee~ there and this is the 22 70 feet req~/irement that we would be 23 down. ko for the mower 36.25 feet which 24 is the closest object to the rear 25 propermy line. P~AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 23 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 This is taken from the actual 3 survey, the survey you have already in 4 the file. Most of the buildings in the 5 area and/or lots are the same, on 6 nonconforming that we are. The lot now 7 or formerly, Inland Homes is less than 8 what the zone requires today for the 9 40,000 square feet. This rear yard 10 squares off to be about 17 feet, so 11 they're nonconforming to with respect 12 to bulk area requirements. The 13 business of now or formerly Briden 14 Machines Corp., the large building 15 that's behind us that is also shown on 16 the aerial 10 feet from the property i7 line, so somewhere they had to get a 18 variance from the required 20 feet to 19 10 feet, or if they preexisted or the 20 code changed, they're also considered 21 nonconforming at this time. 22 This is the building I referred to 23 earlier, Briden, and they are on this 24 piece of property which also includes 25 that building as well, unless there has RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 24 t Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 been a change in the Suffolk County 3 maps or some subdivision that we're 4 aware of. They also have two 5 structures on that proper~y. It miqht 6 have been before this Board. So you ? might have more knowledge than I do. 8 Basically, that's it for testimony. 9 Everything is in the testimony. 10 ~IRMANGOEHRINGER: Thank you. 1! ~R. M. PACFLMA~N: Now, we have John 12 Breslin Sr., our real estate 13 appraiser. Now, Job~n Breslin Jr. 14 Testified at the last hearing. 15 ~KAIRMAN GOEHRINGF~R: t do know 16 Mr. Breslin. I have known him for many 17 years, but I will ask him ~o raise his 18 hand. 19 (Whereupon Chairman C~Dehringer 20 swears in witness.~ 21 MR. M. PACH/W_AN: Again, Mr. 22 Breslin is here no testify and answer 23 any questlons. I would note that on 24 page four of his report under the 25 conclusion of his statement he states, ~-~M COURT REPCRTING SERVICE {516) 727-3168 25 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 "It is my opinion that the proposed 3 use will not prevent the orderly and 4 reasonable use of the adjacent 5 properties. All of the adjacent 6 properties are industrial zone. The 7 proposed application will not change 8 the existing development pattern, nor 9 will it have any impact for the uses 10 permitted in this district or any tl surrounding district. The proposed use 12 will be in harmcny with the general 13 purpose of the ordinance. It is my 14 opinion that the character of the 15 existing development pattern will not 16 be ckanged by the granting of this 17 use. The applicant has sought to 18 !ocase the cell pole adjacent to the 19 Long ~siand Railroad tracks in an 20 ~ndustrial area surrounded by 21 industrial and commercial uses, and 22 that it won't cause any overcrcwding of 23 munmclpal facilities, non unreasonably 24 close 5o any areas of public assembly 25 such as a school or church. The ~ COURT REPORTING SERVICE ~516) 727-3168 26 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 locations of the Bell tower and 3 equipment are assessable for emergency 4 servzce vehicles." And it is his 5 opinion that the application will not 6 adversely impact the property values 7 and it provides a servzce necessary fcr 8 the residents of the town. 9 By the way, I don't know if Howard t0 stated for the record, if he did I 1t apologize for being redundant, but this 12 is an unmanned facility as we discussed 13 at the last hearing. A technician 14 comes once every four mo six weeks in a 15 station wagon, takes ouu a hand bag of 16 tools, spends about an hour and leaves. 17 Thus, this generaues no traffic and, cf 18 course, doesn't require any of the 19 other facilities of an unmanned 20 building. 21 Our next witness zs Terry 22 Elkowitz. She is a princmpal cf 23 Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting 24 Group, Inc.. Her qualifications and 25 her CV are amsached no her repcrn, if ~ COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3!68 27 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 you want, I can go through that if you 3 desire. I would note that she, among 4 her other responsibilities, is 5 Chairwoman of Suffolk County Council of 6 Requirement Review. Ms. Elkowitz has 7 prepared a visual impact analysis which 8 I would like to hand up to the Board 9 along with her qualifications which are 10 detailed and I would ask Ms. Elkowitz, 11 after being sworn, to give a summary of 12 her report analysis. 13 (Whereupon Chairman Goehringer 14 swears in witness.) 15 C~_AIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Thank you. 16 MS. ELKOWITZ: Hello, Mr. 17 Chairman, Members of the Board. As Mr. 18 Pachman said, I am Terry Etkowitz and 19 I'm an environmental consultant. I was 20 retained on this application for the 21 purpose of assessing the quality of the 22 area. We reviewed the plans, inspected 23 the site on several occasions, and what 24 we were asked to do by Bell Atlantic 25 was to assess the impact of a standard RAM. COD~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 28 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 monopole and a proposed 99 feet Bell 3 tower. Now, the report is lengthy. 4 I'm just going to summarize some of our 5 conclusions. As you see and orderly -- 6 these are actual photographs, and a 7 firm called Creative Visions was 8 retained to do a supermmposition no 9 scale of the proposed monopole and in !0 this case, we're proposing the Bell 1! tower. They actually pu~ a physical 12 balloon or cone so when they hake the 13 photo, they Enow exactly where the 14 Bell uower is supposed to be. Then 15 they get the soecs from the 16 manufacturer and the colors of the 17 materials and using Cellcad and 18 Autocad, superimpose the detail, and 19 this is what it would look llke. 20 Now, you would see that the 2i horizon proxmmate to this area already 22 interrupted by poles which travel down 23 the smreem and utility lines. Now, 24 there are two areas where we deem this 25 pole would be visible. One zs iookzng ~AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 29 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 from Westphalia and Pike in this 3 direction, and that's what is depicted 4 here. The other is Route 48 and 5 Westphalia and you can see the 6 perspectives, and this area you can see 7 a parking lot right across the street. 8 From this perspective, you see the Bell 9 tower even with no vegetation and the !0 trees blend in with these lines and is 11 also interrupted even by the 12 unve~etated area. 13 So, in order to mitigate potential 14 adverse impacts because this was 15 visible from two corridors that are 16 significant corridors in Mat~ituck, we 17 propose that a Bell tower be used as 18 opposed to a standard monopote. 19 Furthermore, Bell Atlantic Mobile -- 20 wall, you can't see it on the photo. 21 They are proposing to do landscaping 22 around the base to block the equipment 23 shelter so you wouldn't be able to see 24 it from street level. So in conclusion 25 and in my professional opinion, this PJ%M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 action will not result in significant 3 adverse impacts that haven't been 4 mitigated to the maximum standard. 5 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: gave you 6 seen any of these shielded in any other 7 way with evergreens, so as to mitigate 8 the visual impact in the future? 9 MS. ELKOWITZ: You mean taller 10 vegetation, is tkat what you're asking? !1 They're proposing slgnificant 12 planting that blocks the equipment 13 shelter, but I think as you see from 14 here depending on where you stand, the 15 direction and perception, certainly 16 depending on where it is, iu can be 17 more effectively blocked. 18 CHAIRMAN 3OEHRINGER: Thank you. 19 MR. H. PAC~qMAN: Mr. Chairman and 20 Members of the Board, this concludes 21 that portion of the hearing which talks 22 about the application under the current 23 ordinance as mt exists today. As you 24 know, back mn July, a proposed 25 moratormum for 60 days was imposed by RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516 727-3168 31 1 Bell Atlantic Mobi.te/Nynex - 2 the Town Board which effectively said 3 that no Board could make a 4 determination to an application that 5 was presently pending during the course 6 of that morauorium, and they are 7 proposing a new local law as to change 8 the areas of the ability of a cellular 9 company similar to Bell Atlantic Mobile 10 to gee a cellular tower or Bell tower 11 as we have here for monopo!e by using a 12 concept saying that areas like 13 Mattituck Light Industrial area, there 14 should be an easier application no get 15 in that area. That's what we want to 16 concentrate, the cellular ohone areas 17 and as we gem into residential areas, 18 there was a higher standard going to be 19 imposed. That local law was put on the 20 ~!e for August of last month and a 21 proposed local law was submitted, sen 22 dow~ for local hearing, and there was 23 some criticism after the code 24 committees tried 5o forge and cobble 25 together a workable local law and P~24 COURT REPORTING SERVICE .5!6) 727-3168 32 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 because of the criticisms, the Board 3 decided to hold off in adopting that 4 local law and extend the moratorium 5 another 60 days which would bring it no 6 November 17th. 7 Just by way of history, but for 8 the record, we maintained a lawsuit in 9 federal court on the moratorium saying 10 that in was improperly zmposing the 11 failure of the Board similar to this 12 Board of Zoning Appeals, who does non 13 render permits, but merely gives 14 consent as to whether a special pe!-m~it 15 is appropriately granted. The same 16 with the Planning Board, and the only 17 one who would ultimately issue a permit 18 would be the building official, and we 19 never got no that point based on 20 opinion of nown counsel, it was you 21 weren'm supposed no do that. That 22 lawsuit is still lying and ~n answer 23 was jusn recently put in and proceeding 24 on it's course. When this hearing was 25 originally scheduled, it was our PJkM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 33 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 understanding that the new local law 3 was adopted, the moratorium would have 4 expired, and we would have had a new 5 local law, which again, as I stated, 6 make it somewhat more easy or to 7 facilitate the establishing of the 8. cellular phone towers or cellular 9 monopoles in industrial areas which 10 would be the most preferable location. 11 So we said let's hold a hearing 12 tonight because the local law would be 13 adooted am mhat time. But 14 unfor5unate!y, as we stated, the local 15 law has not been acted on. There has 16 been 5wo, possibly three revisions, the 17 latest revision being done last night. 18 There was a meeting with Code 19 Committee. Speaking with Town Counsel] 20 she indicated to us as far as the 21 Mattituck area, in was the same in the 22 original with certain minor 23 modifications. 24 So we are prepared at this time to 25 give you 5esnimony as if that local law RAM. COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3!68 3~ 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 is adopted prior to your coming no a 3 decision zn this case, rather than 4 coming back for a separane hearing for 5 those same three variances that we 6 talked about today, would be the same 7 three variances that we need, but we 8 would non need the special permit part 9 of the application. Purely the three 10 variances would be the height varmance 11 from 35 feet to 99 feet, the setback 12 variance from 70 feet co 36.25', and 13 the 20 feet no t5 feet, ~nich was nhe 14 variances we have. So under the new 15 law, that's the only thing we have ~o 16 come to this Board for. would be as to 17 the variance. We say we have given you 18 that proof. 19 Ma5~ will give you a summary as to 20 the snandards under the Sasso-Osgood 21 case %phonetic) which says how we mean 22 mhat criteria and the only remaining 23 issue ~s an issue with reference 50 5he 24 ability of the site no be within an 25 area known as - can I have my exhibit R_AM COL~RT REPORTING SERVICE {516) 727-3168 35 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 that no site or structure or building 3 be within 300 feet of a historic place, 4 300 feet of a place registered in a 5 national estate register of historical 6 places, within 300 feet of a Southold 7 designated registered area and within 8 300 feet of scenic roads, vistas, 9 landscapes, estates. That's the only 10 new wrinkle we have. 11 MS. TORTOR3t: And within 100 feet 12 of any residential property line. 13 MR. H. PACqlZJ~Y: And within 100 14 feet of any residential property line. 15 Okay. We have here a zoning mad as an 16 exhibit. It's in color and if you look 17 am than zoning map -- 18 CHAIRMAN GOEFiRINGER: There's 19 nothing about churches, right? 20 MR. K. PACHMAN: No. If you look 21 a~ that zoning map, you will see that 22 there is light industry area, which is 23 the orange picot, beige skin color. 24 The green area is the hamlet business 25 area, and blue is low density RAM COO~RT REPORTING SERVICE (5t6) 727-3168 36 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 residential. So you can see we're not 3 within 100 feet of any those particular 4 areas in the zoning map. 5 CHAIRStAN C~DEHRINGER: This says 6 three hundred diameter, one hundred 7 radius? 8 MR.FALASCO: This is 500 feet 9 because for the purposes of nhe 10 hearing, we were requested to put all 11 zoning within 500 feet. Your new 12 ordinance is 300 feet but we put 500 13 feet. if you do have any questions, 14 will be glad to show it to you. t have 15 a scale. 16 CI~_AIRFuAN GOEHRINGER: No. 17 .MR. K. PACB24kN: If I missed 18 anything else, Ms. Tortora, please tell 19 me. 20 MS. TORTORA: I don't know. 21 [.~R. K. PA~U24Aiq: That leaves the 22 last point which is the issue that we 23 have of J. Lance Mallamo. Would you 24 stand up and put up your right hand? 25 J. LANCE M3~LLA~MO, the witness _RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE <516) 727-3168 37 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 herein, having first been duly sworn by 3 a Notary Public of the State of New 4 York, ~estified as follows: 5 MR. H. PACHMAN: What is your 6 occupation sir? 7 MfR. MALLAMO: I'm employed 8 full-time by Suffolk County. I'm 9 Suffolk County Historian. I work 10 through historic sites owned by Suffolk 11 County. 12 MR. H. PACFr24AN: How long have you 13 have that occupation and position? 14 MR. MALLAMO: Co~unty Historian 15 for 10 years and I have been director 16 of Historic Services 14 years. 17 MR. H. PACHNLAN: He's been 14 18 years with the Historic Trust and in 19 this business approximately 15 years. 20 I do believe he qualifies. 21 MR. M. PACHM/LN: Mr. Mallamo you 22 have prepared a repor~ with respect 5o 23 this site in relation to any particular 24 slues which are registered on the 25 National or State of Register of RAM. COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 38 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 Historlc Places; is that correct? 3 MR. MALLAMO: That's right. 4 MR. M. PACPJ4Aiq: I would like to 5 hand up copies of the reporm to this 6 Board and on the first page of that 7 report, Mr. Mallamo makes the following 8 findings; that there are no sines, 9 structures, building, districts, 10 objecns in Mattituck or multiple 11 resources listed or dete_~mined for 12 listing on the National or State 13 Register of Historic places within the 14 300 feet of the projecn area. There 15 are no sites or district~ listed on the 16 Southo!d register of designated I7 landmarks within 300 feet of the area, 18 and there are no designated scenic 19 visnas, landscapes, or scenic roads 20 designated by the Town of Southo!d 21 within the projec~ area, and of ~ourse, 22 Mr. Mallamo ls here for any quesmzons 23 that the Board might have. 24 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. ! don't 25 have any questions. RAM CO%~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 39 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 MR. M. PACSAMA~N: Thank you, Mr. 3 Mallamo. I would just bring this 4 Board's attention to an earlier 5 application which the Board granted, 6 appeal number 4062SE and that was the 7 Nynex Public Utility Cell Phone 8 str~cture at 21855 County Road 48, the 9 Cutchocue site, and the Board may 10 recall in that application there was an 1! LI Zone. The height was 100 feet, the 12 side yard from 20 feet to 14 feet. 13 We re asking to 20 fee5 to 15 feet and 14 the rear yard setback var!ance which 15 was granted was from 70 feet to 20 feet 16 requested and again, we're asking only 17 from the 70 feet 36.25 feet. That 18 application had only the nwo uses on it 19 as did the Cel!ularOne AT&T application 20 of Mattituck. 21 Mr. Chairman, Members of the 22 Board, you are familiar with Section 23 267 B of the Town Law which lays out 24 the criteria for an area variance and 25 that has been reaffi~ed by the Court RAM COURT .REPORTING SERVICE ~516) 727-3168 40 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 of Appeals in the Sasso v. Osgood 3 case. We believe we have met all of 4 that criteria, we believe we have shown 5 there will non be an undesirable change 6 produced to the character in the 7 neighborhood, or detriment to the 8 nearby properties that would be created 9 by the granting of this variance. We 10 believe that the benefit which needs 5o 11 be sought by this applicant, a public 12 utility in providing the coverage by 13 the FCC mandated and New York State 14 Public Service Commission, can't be 15 achieved by some lesser variance and 16 the requested area variance is not 17 substantial, especially 5o the effect 18 that this is the m!nimum tha5 this 19 public utility can recn~est and s~ill 20 eliminate the servlce deficiencies, and 21 given that even greater variances have 22 been aproved by the Board, and the 23 var!ance will nom have an effect on the 24 pkysical or environmental conditions of 25 the neighborhood. -~3%~ COURT REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3168 1 - Bell Atlantzc Mobile/Nynex 2 MI{. H. PAC~NLAN: Mr. Chairman, we 3 think we have submitted a more than 4 sufficienn record, more extraordinary 5 record, having more evidence that is 6 required, that either under the old law 7 or existing law as it presently exists, 8 or the law as we understand it today. 9 The SEQRA requirement has been filled !0 ouu and has been submitted to the 11 P!~nnlng Deparnmens. We have filled 12 ouu Part Three's -- Part One in this 13 one. We have answered their several 14 and many questiohs. We have paid their 15 several and many fees. We have 16 commented on several occasions on the 17 information they have asked us for, 18 which we felt was non appropriane, but 19 we have answered it. We have in due 20 course that last Friday night, the last 21 open Planning Board meetzng, that they 22 will have made a determination decision 23 on SEQRA, but to my surprise, 24 unfortunane regret, they didn't and I 25 kncw they have to wait for them to make P~AnM COHORT REPORTING SERVICE 516) 727-3168 42 t - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 that decision, i hope they will do it 3 with some dispatch, and if there are 4 any questions, we have presented our 5 application within the hour as I told 6 Ms. Kowalski we would do. Hopefully 7 you have all the information you need. 8 CHAIPdVLnxW C~OEHRINGER: Let me just 9 understand. Now, it is your oplnion 10 that the presentation that you have 11 given us tonight is basically a !2 completed presentation based upon the 13 old law and whenever the new law 14 intends to be? 15 MR. H. PACr~mkAN: As we understand 16 the old taw, there is no qaestion the 17 old law being the existing law. Now, 18 if the proposed !aw has been circulated 19 in the first, second, or third draft, 20 and In nhe information sump!led to us 21 and based upon one and two, there is no 22 quesnion in my mind that we complied 23 with that portion of the law which 24 permains mo that sine of light 25 industrial. P-~M COURT REPORTING SERViCE~ [516) 727-3168 43 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 CHAIPdVLAN GOEHRINGER: Let's take a 3 worst case scenario, that there are 4 some changes that effect this 5 particular application. 6 MR. H. PACF~M~: We would then 7 request the indulgence of this Board to 8 open uo this hearing, which they would 9 have the rzght to do, and we would t0 supply any additional information which 12 anyone would feel was not supplied 12 because of any other change in law or 13 any change in law that does exist. 14 MS. TORTOni: I have not had a 15 chance ~o review the drafted code !6 changes that were subjected last 17 night. However, since it is not 18 finalized yet, I would like to leave 19 the hearing open so that we all ~ralow 20 what we're dealing with. 21 MR. H. PA~H~N: As of my 22 conversation with the Towm_ Attorney 23 Laurie Dowd (phonetic). 24 CHAIRM3LN GOEHRINGER: She did 25 mention that to us. RAM COD~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3!~8 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 MR. H. PACHMA-N: You were there. 3 The issue is at the end of the lease. 4 We would give you a copy of our lease. 5 We would take down the tower. We've 6 given you a copy of the lease, a_nd the 7 lease requires us to take down nhe 8 tower at the termination of our lease. 9 The new ordinance provides that we 10 remove the existing antenna or post a 11 bond, the amounn of which is still 12 flexible, so under our lease 13 conditions, we are obligated to remove 14 the tower. 15 Number nwo, whether the RF 16 emissions mee~s the requirements of 17 FCC, Mr. Cornacchia's affidavit takes 18 care of that. The search ring, we have 19 had the blue things which are attached 20 show you the search ring, and the last 21 one which I'll never understand, 22 provides that the condition of a five 23 year renewable basis, it's like a life 24 insurance companyf every five years we 25 have mo come in and renew the R~ COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 45 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 application. 3 CHAI~WAN GOEHRINGER: Surely you 4 weren'~ expecting the decision prior to 5 December 177 6 MR. H. PA~H~3~N: Yes. We believe 7 you have the right no render a decision 8 under the old law and should render a 9 decision under the old law. I can't 10 tell you what you're going to do, like 11 couldn't tell you ias5 time. I'm 12 preaching 5o the wrong choir here. 13 CHAIRMA~N GOEHRINGER: I'm not 14 speaking for any of my colleagues, but 15 you don't want us to get fired, do 16 you? 17 ~v[R. H. PA~-A~LAN: I wouldn't want 18 you to be intimidated as independent 19 officers of the Board to have the fear 20 of being fired by making a decision 21 which in your good conscience is an 22 appropriase decision and based on the 23 law. That was nom said in jest, but it 24 was said in punishment, but it was 25 real. RA~ CO~-RT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 46 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 CHAIPdVLANGOEHRINGER: There are a 3 couple other minor housekeeping issues 4 that people have called me on my phone 5 at home concerning the Bell tower 6 itself. 7 Surely, not with any particular 8 feeling towards some really nice, nice, 9 music, and I think you heard some 10 chimes during this hearing, and nor are tl we trying to compete, but the question 12 that was voiced I will carry to the 13 floor~ and that is: Can this Bell 14 mower be a functional Bell tower? 15 M~. ~. PAC~H~AN: You want chimes? 16 C~IRMAN GOEMRINGER: Could it ~ 17 asked. 18 RESIDENT (RICF_ARD WE~4RETER): 19 Typically, like a church Bell mower, 20 but it's nom the intent to acm on it. 21 C~L~_IRM3LN GOEHRINGER: I'm merely 22 asking a question, if it could be 23 done? 24 MR. H. PACHM~: I would think 25 most people would not want that, but R_AM COURT ~PORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 47 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 there are some that have doves in them, 3 kIlow what I mean? I don' t ]<now if you 4 want that either, but we're trying to 5 make a functional tower here. 6 CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: I'm just 7 reflecting the question. 8 MR. ~. PACHMAN: Apparently, 9 scientifically, engineeringwise and 10 impractically, yes. Significantly, we i1 can, but we can't guarantee it won't 12 fait or won't blow a tube or scmething. 13 CHAIR~-AN GOEHRINGER: There is a __~ chu_~hrd within 300 feet. 15 MR. H. PACP_MAN: i wouldn't want 16 ~o be in conflict with any church. 17 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next 18 issue is that I have no intention of 19 closing this hearing. It's just not 20 within any purview at this point based 21 upon this morauorium. We are some 22 monmh away, 30 days away. 23 MR. H. PACHMAN: November !7th, 24 December more or less. 25 CHAIRMJ~N GOEHRINGER: Five weeks. RAM COURT P~EPORTING SERVICE .516) 727-3168 48 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 When I was referring ~o the word, 3 "Firing", I was referring that ! 4 didn't want to sustain any criticisms, 5 any outside agencies, based on the 6 moratorium at this time. 7 MR. H. PACFLMAN: I understand what 8 you're saying. ~With all due deference 9 and respect and understanding, I think 10 your position is wrong. 1t C~iAIR1W3~N GOEHRINGER: As you know 12 we have disagreed before. 13 MR. H. PACt~WLAN: That's why I like 14 you. 15 CHAIRMAN C~DEHRtNGER: For all 16 intents and purposes, we'll take any 17 testmmony of any of the people here !8 tonight and we appreciate your 19 presentation you gave to us tonight and 20 we'll continue. 21 MS. TORTORA: (inaudible) (said 22 something to the effect of non having 23 to address the mssue of special 24 requirement Did I mis~nderst~d? 25 ~v~q. H. PACHMAN: No, and as I salt PJIM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 49 t - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 before, as it usually does, brings 3 things back to reality, under your 4 zonmng ordinance -- I thought maybe I 5 had said it. 6 MS. TORTORA: Maybe you said this 7 once before at another hearing because 8 you went through that list before. 9 MR. H. PACSIMAN: No, no. The i0 reason for that is mnder this 1! particular section, in the Li Section, 12 which is 100-141, the permitted uses 13 are listed. Then the special 14 exceptmons are also listed, and the !5 listing of special exceptions is, 16 "Public utility use." No other 17 language modifying it as in special 18 excep~zons, when you have it in a 19 special residential zone. 20 MS. TORTORA: So you feel that it 21 doesn't have to meet the general 22 criteria? 23 M~. H. PACNi~_AN: Oh, the general 24 conditions, yes. We have to expedite 25 each she of the affidavits. Each one R~2~ CO~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 50 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 of the affidavits has each of those 3 questions and answers. If you want, 4 can go through the litany of the 5 questions again, and I have-the 6 witnesses here. I'll do it anyway you 7 like it. I'll cut it, I'll dice it, 8 I'll slice it. Every one of those 9 questions are answered in the 10 affidavits, again, only 5o expedite the 11 hearing, t did non go through that 12 litany again But they have been 13 answered by Mr. Cornacchia, by Mr. 14 Breslin's affidavit, answered by Mr. 15 Patasco's affidavit, each one of those 16 questions, which are the general 17 conditions. So there are uwo things we 18 have to prove, yes, the general 19 conditions, and the special. The 20 special conditions we are a public 21 utility. General conditions are 22 literally se5 forth right in the 23 affidaviEs and they will do it ceri 24 atum. 25 MS. TORTORA: You have ~o R_AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 51 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 understand we haven't had a chance to 3 go over it. 4 MR. K. PACKMAN: I'm glad you 5 brought it to my attention. No one has 6 overlooked it. I was there. No inten5 7 was done and we don't want to leave any 8 stone unturned. 9 CHAI_PJ~_AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 10 We would tike anyone in ~he 11 audience exp_ressing in the favor~fole, 12 anybody in favor of the application 13 5hat would like ~o speak. Seeing no 14 handsr is there anybody who would like - 15 to speak against the application? Just 16 state your name for the record. 17 MR. BOUFFB-RD: ~y name is Fred 18 Bouffard and I own the adjoining, two 19 of the adjoining properties. I didn't 20 know I was going to come here against 21 the barrage of lawyers, and charns, and 22 paraph~natia. To me, I think this is a 23 simple issue and if I'm not right, 24 please tell me. I thought this was 25 because you want a variance for RAM. COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 52 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 building structures of two kinds and 3 this does not meet the existing code; 4 am I correc~ in this? 5 CHAIP34AN GOEHRINGER: Yes. 6 MR. BOUFFARD: And we're supposed 7 ao decide if we wana to do this, it's 8 not to the code; is that correct? 9 CHAIRMAN GOE~IRINGER: Well, yes. 10 MR. BOUFFARD: A gentleman brought tl up that the Briden machine doesn't meen 12 the side yard clearances by today's 13 standard, but he didn't say their 14 existing building doesn't mee~ them 15 either, that's one of the things. It's 16 on the line~ Now, the owner of this 17 property, he also brought up 18 individuals owned this for years and 19 years, that the owners that bought it, 20 bought it within the last few years, sc 21 they knew all the existing codes during 22 that time. There are no hardships. If 23 there were, I think [ would look aa 24 this a little bit different. Zt's 25 simply a matter of they're renting a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 53 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 building and they want to put up more 3 buildings. Well, I would like to do 4 that, and so would all the other 5 people, but we have laws and codes to 6 abide by and I expect the Board to go 7 by the code. 8 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 9 Anybody else? State your name please. 10 RESIDENT (BILL GEITON): 1! [phonetic) Mattituck, and I'm across 12 the street on Westphalia opposite from 13 ~he structure. The public utility is 14 used to satisfy how much of the t5 public? 16 CHAI~ GOEHRINGER: We'll take 17 all of them and if they care to answer 18 they will. 19 MR. GEiTON: Okay. If I'm not 20 mistaken, he quoted a variance on a 20 21 foot building, but then he also said 22 they were going to put up a 40 foot 23 building; is that correct? 24 CP~AIRM3~N GOEHRINGER: They'll 25 explain that. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3t68 54 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 MfR. GEITON: The RF current is 3 below the standard FCC allowed, and I 4 don't know what that is. I don't know 5 what that is. I've heard many things 6 about the FCC current. There are 7 pieces of property that are less than 8 100 feet from this tower that have 9 three families in it on Sound Avenue, 10 and charcoal I think is also within 100 11 feet of the property? 12 CFLAIRMAN GOEFLRINGER: That's 13 correc5, i don't know about 100 feet. 14 MR. GEITON: Anyway, this guy t5 comes every four to slx weeks to check 16 things over, does he also check the 17 power for safety; is he the only guy 18 that's supposed to be coming; does he 19 also check for the safety and stability 20 of the tower at that time? 21 C~AIRM_AN GOEHRINGER: Yes. It may 22 be a calibration issue too. I don't 23 know. 24 MR. GEITON: Is the tower metal; 25 not a chance of lightning protection on RAM. COURT REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3168 55 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 that? 3 M~.FALASCO: Yes, metal. There is 4 lightning protection on that. 5 CHAIRMA/~ GOEHRINGER: There are 6 lightening rods on the tower? You'll 7 explain that? 8 MR. GEITON: What do we have to 9 gain, we who are surrounding that, what i0 do we have to gain; is it going to 11 enhance our neighborhood, our 12 businesses and community, and how many 13 of these people need this new telephone 14 system? 15 CHAI_RPLANGOE~RINGER: I don't mean 16 this sarcastically, but we have been 17 5rying to figure this out for a long 18 uime. 19 Would you like to answer this? 20 MR. M. PACHMAN: Yes. I think I 21 have them written down. Just one 22 second. With respect to the need, Bell 23 Atlantic Mobile, as I stated before, is 24 a public utility. It has been granted 25 a license by the Federal Communications R3~M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 56 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 Commission and a Certificate of Public 3 Necessity by the New York State Public 4 Service Commission. 5 Along with that comes mandates and 6 responsibilities. That ls among 7 others, to provide seemless coverage in 8 i~'s service area so that anybody who 9 wants or needs to use this public 10 utility communications network can use 11 lc, just like the land line has certain 12 mandates with respecz to having service 13 when you pick up the ohone zn your 14 house. That is the public need and 15 oublic necessity, 16 In addition, as in Mr Charallet's 17 affidavit, the radio frequency 18 engineer, this service deficiency in 19 this area prevents Bell Atlantic Mobile 20 from providing this seemless cell 21 coverage to pr!vase and public uses 22 which includes fire, police, and 23 emergency response vehicles. There are 24 literally millions of calls no 25 emergency 911 on both Bell Atl~nsic's ~AM COL~<T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 57 t - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 se~ice and other services of cellular 3 providers each year, and so because of 4 the re_q~irement for seemless coveragef 5 and the need for whomever wants to use 6 this public utility service whether it 7 be fire, or emergency, or others, that 8 is whl/ we need the coverage. 9 With respect to the checking of 10 the tower, that is something that is 11 remotely monitored on a 24 hour basis 12 by this company. There are certain 13 requirements again that go along with 14 the NCC license and the PSC Certificate 15 of Public Necessity, and that is one of 16 them. With respect to the FCC level of 17 radio frequency, that is something that 18 has been promulgated and determined by 19 the FCC and as this Board knows, this 20 Board does not have any jurisdiction to 21 vary That standard. 22 ~md again, we have shown by Mr. 23 Cornacchia's affidavit, we are not only 2~ below mhat standard, but hundreds to 25 thousands Times below that standard. R3~M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 58 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 With respecn to the 40 foot and 20 foot 3 building, we said the 4 Telecommunications Act of 1996, the 5 federal law which governs Bell 6 Atlantic, as well as other cellular 7 providers, states or encourages both us 8 and others to co-locate on sites and 9 that the 12 foot by 40 foom building t0 which we propose will allow us to 11 co-locate. 12 if we had a smaller equipment 13 building, we will not have the ability 14 uo co-locate, thus we would not be able 15 to meeu that requirement, and, in fact, 16 the proposed local law that the Tcwn 17 Board has drafted and considered also 18 requires Bell Atlantic uo provide the 19 ability to co-locate. 20 And, finally, with respect uo Mr. 21 Bouffard's statements, what we had 22 submitted to the Board is what is 23 called a single and separate search~ 24 and what that shows is that this 25 property has remained separate and RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 59 i - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 single, has not merged with any other 3 property since the change in the 4 building ordinance of the Town of 5 Southold which re_?aired the minimum of 6 40,000 square feet for a lot in the 7 Light Industrial District, which we 8 nesnified to before and that's the 9 certified reporn we submitted. _And 10 what happens is with respect to a 11 separame and single search, it doesn'T 12 lust go from when the present owners, 13 you look back to the prior owners, the t4 Rehms, so jusn because the Rehms have 15 nurchased this property, that doesn't 16 change the single and separate snanus !7 which takes this lot nun of the 18 requirement for the 40,000 square 19 feet. 20 MfR. GEITON: But you're a separate 21 entity, you're non a single separate. 22 MR. M. PACHM3~N: That's a 23 different analysis. We are allowed to 24 go on this lot if we meet the criteria 25 of the special pez~it as we have shown RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 6O 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 you tonight and if we meet the 3 requmrement for the variances as we've 4 discussed here tonight. 5 ~HAIRMAN GOEFIRINGER: Any other 6 questions, Bill? 7 MR. BO~-FFARD: You're not closing 8 thi~ hearing; is that correct? 9 CFIAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. State 10 your name please. 11 RESIDE~T (PAT MOORE): (phonetic) i2 One of the comments made is how this 13 business impacns the neighborhood and 14 what essentially - zf I can paraphrase 15 - what you will do to enhance the area 16 in this particular parc of Westphalia, 17 and I have my own certain self interest 18 smnce I'm a tenant and it could use 19 some sprucing up. What would your 20 thoughts be on meeting with some of the 21 neighbors than may have some thoughts 22 on how mo make this area a nicer ~rea, 23 and possibly convince them that a Bell 24 nower alone is non all that Nynex can 25 provide to immrove and enhance this RAM COURT REPORTING S~ViCE (5162 727-3168 61 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 ~area. 3 CHAIPdVLAi~ GOE~RINGER: She is a ~ tenant in Inland Homes adjacent to it. 5 MR. H. PACHM3LN: I speak with some 6 reluctance here~ we have no difficulty 7 meeting with the residents, the 8 tenants, the owners' of the adjacent 9 sites. I'm somewhat surprised that 10 this issue was raised in the sense that 11 we would normally go into a monopole 12 which is our standard pole that we 13 would erect at half the price, and in 14 an effort to accommodate this area, and 15 which we have the right to do, we 16 thought as an accommodation and putting 17 out our hand to the people in the 18 Westphalia area, that we would put up 19 the Belt tower, i now find that these 20 people find that to be maybe 21 offensive. 22 we'll be pleased to go back to the 23 monopole to save cost, but that's not 24 what we're trying to do here. The area 25 of Westphalia and it's surrounding RAM CO~T REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 62 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 environs have nothing to do with Bell 3 Atlantic coming in and putting up ins ~ Bell tower. You're imposing on Bell 5 Atlantic a condition no doing something 6 more to its landlord site and I would 7 assume we're going to be getting a hand 8 from the people around us and they ~re 9 going no improve their sites~ so in 10 meets the same standards. If that is 11 whan the general concept is, we'll meen 12 them. The mssue zs you can't, because 13 we're entitled to do something, ask us 14 no do something more and you're 15 imposing upon everyone else, but we'll 16 meen with them to accommodate 17 ourselves. 18 MR. M. PACHM_AN: As Ms. Etkowitz 19 testified to, we would be willing to 20 pun landscaping around the perimener of 21 our small leased area which I 22 understand would be the only 23 landscaping on this site now, or, 24 indeed, on the InLand Homes, the 1500 25 square feet, of course, around cur R3~4 CO~-RT REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3168 63 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 leased area which would be the first 3 landscaping on this site, and the first 4 landscaping area on the Inland Home 5 site, and of course, we have to 6 remember the railroad goes just south 7 along the area. 8 MS. TORTORA: As you, ycurself 9 said, you are still applying for three i0 variances; Correct? Under 267A of Tow~. 1t Law what is the balancing, criteria, 12 test, the balancing test is would the 13 benefit to Zhe applicant outweigh the 14 detriment to the community, correct? 15 MR. H. PACH1Vul~N: That is correct. 16 MS. TORTORA: Ar_d so it would not 17 be a signing out Bell Atlana_c in any 18 way, shape or form to request Bell 19 Atlantic as this Board has done with 20 many applicants in the past and 21 continues to do with an area variance 22 to ask them to mitigate any possible 23 adverse effects that is not out of line 24 at all for us. We do it all the time. 25 MR. M. PACHMAN: Yes. Again, I R_~M CODLRT P~EPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 think we're trying to point out, we've 3 already attempted by doing that, by ~ again immediately going to the Bell 5 tower instead of the monopole, by 6 agree!ng to landscape around our 1500 7 square feet, so I think we are jusu 8 tryzng to point that ouu. 9 MS. TORTORA: I mhink there would 10 be nothing unusual about that au all. 11 CHAIRM3~N GOEHRINGER: The questzon 12 ~ have and probably one of the more 13 final questions, assuming this is the 14 Bell uower and we're dealing with a 15 co-locate, ~nat effect does co-tocammon 16 have on the exisEing Bell tower zn the 17 area? 18 MR. H. PACrIM~_~: It can be used 19 for the co-location. They share it. 20 C~IR~tAN GOEHRINGER: But how is 21 it shared within the engineering 22 standpoint? 23 M~. K. PACI~M_AN: The building is 24 adequate, the two equipment areas. 25 There is a 20 foot separation so one PJ%M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 65 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 tower goes on top here and the next 3 goes down under beneath that. You 4 could add another panel. 5 CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Would the 6 panel be the same distance as the other 7 one? 8 MR. R. PAC~Y: Yes. And there's 9 also another way to do it, on my right, 10 they can use whips which would against I1 it, the same color panels, but it 12 wouldn't raise the height of the tower. 13 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That goes 14 back to my original question to Ms. 15 Elkowitz and that was: We're talking 16 about a pretty serious visual impact. 17 I mean, the tower, there's no question 18 about it, it's five times better in my 19 opinion than the monopole. Is there 20 some other type of greenery we could 21 puu ~o lessen the impact of the towerf 22 and that's the issue. I realize she is 23 not going to answer that because she is 24 a consultant of yours. That's why i'm 25 asking the question. I mean, can we P_AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (~16) 727-3168 66 1 - Bell Atlantic M~biie/Nynex 2 build or plant 20 feet or 30 feet 3 evergreens arou/ld that, and a5 what 4 point does this tower become 5 nonfunctional ~nen you co-locate? 5f 6 you put four on 20 feet apare, you are 7 all the way down? 8 MR.FALASCO: That would be the 9 nex5 user's needs. In other words, the 10 next user may come up and based on his 11 engineered system, could be re.cfuired no 12 be 60 feet high. 13 CF~IRMA/~ GOEHRINGER: Yes, but it i4 becomes a law of diminishing renurns. 15 .MR. FALJLSCO: No doubt about it, 16 nobody's going to warm mo go am the 17 base. 18 M~. K. PACA74A_N: You would 19 resnrict amounm of the ~bitity 20 the carrier other than Dee more because 21 of the size of the building. We are 22 only providing for a single 23 co-location, one ~dditional person, 24 entity. 25 ~rIAIR~3/q C~DEHRINGER: So in .RAM COL~RT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 67 1 Bell Atlantic Mobite/Nym--ex - 2 effect, the visual impact could be 3 lessened because you can go all the ~ way up to approximately 60 feet? 5 MR. H. PACPlW3LN: No, because the 6 height of the tower determines -- 7 CF~IRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm talking 8 visually. You could, in effect, plant 9 the 20 foot evergreen and it could grow 10 in five years and lessen the visual 1t impact of the tower; I'm asking the 12 question~ could it be done? 13 M~R. H. PACHMAN: Before i answer 14 the question, I want to give you some 15 more input and insight, and more 16 understanding of the surrounding area. 17 Mr. Falasco~ this afternoon 18 before we came here, did you measure 19 the height of the Inland Homes 20 building; how tall is that building? 21 iM/~. FALASCO: I would estimate 22 from the street line, that goes up a 23 couple of stairs~ and it's. roughly 24 around 40 feet high, approximately. 25 MR. H. PAC~3~N: There's two P~AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 68 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 series of Lilco telephone combination 3 poles that run in the properny and are 4 adjacent thereto. 5 MR. FALASCO: Yes. 6 ~%iR. ~. PACFI~AN: Did you measure 7 those? 8 MR. FALASCO: Yes. 9 MR. K. PACHMAN: What are the 10 height of these pcles? 11 MR. FALJtSCO: Approximately 60 12 fee5. 13 MR. H. PA~qMAN: So we have an 14 existing site line on existing 15 impairment of ability with a skyline 16 and visual area of up 60 feet in the 17 ~rea now; correct? 18 MR. FAL]%SCO: Are ycu asking me is 19 Lilco required no put a 5tee in front 20 of their pole? 21 MR. H, PACHMAN: Right. 22 MR. FALASCO: No. it's a utility 23 piece, it's on the street. 24 MR. H. PA~: On 5op of that 25 inland home, did you find an annenna on RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE 516 727-3168 69 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 ~op of that building? 3 MR. FALASCO: Yes. 4 MR. H. PACKMAN: How tall was that 5 antenna? 6 MR. FALASCO: I don't know. I 7 didn't measure. Probably a couple more 8 feet on top of that. 9 MR. PACHMAN: Would you estimate 10 !0 feet? 11 MR. FALASCO: That may be on the 12 high side. 5 feet, 6 feet. 13 MR. H. PACHMAlq: We have 14 existing building there, a 60 foot 15 telephone line, 60 foot utility line, 16 and we're going up 99 feet? 17 MR. FALASCO: Yes. 18 MR. H. PACHMA~: Ms. Elkowiuz, in 19 light of those additional numbers that 20 you heard, could you explain for us in 21 your opinion, from your expertise, your 22 ability, whether that would have any 23 slue impact? 24 MS. BLKOWITZ: I think I've 25 explained before that the horizon has R3LM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 70 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 already been impacted with the existing 3 some odd 60 foot pole and the existing 4 lines which travel down the road, and 5 this Bell mower, if you look am it 6 especially from the second area on the 7 bottom, you can see that it blends in 8~ the area in the horizon with the 9 existing structures. 10 MR. H. PAC~U24AN: With existing 11 poles and you have been with Bell 12 Atlantic for several years now, and 13 we've puu up other poles, where the 14 poles were actually put up in existing 15 areas similar ~o this, after the 16 erection of the pole amd based upon 17 your expertise, did you find there were 18 visual line problems? 59 MS. ELKOWITZ: No. 20 MS. TORTOP~A: I'm confused, 21 because I have you down here saylng 22 about an hour ago that~ yes, you 23 discussed the visual impacts, but 24 have you down here saying it can be 25 more effectively blocked. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516 727-3168 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 MS. ELKOWITZ: I didn't conKradict 3 myself. I did say that. 4 MS. TORTORA: What did you have in 5 mind? 6 MS. ELKOWITZ: You can. The 7 Chairman asked me if vegetatiom is ~ 8 effective buffer, and I said yes, and I 9 believe I even pointed to the t0 vegetation here, and I believe my 11 response said it's also the placement, 12 the locasion and perception from where 13 the viewer is standing. 14 MS. TORTORA: When you said it 15 could be more effectively blocked, you 16 mean not by the applicant, but by the 17 residents? 18 MS. ELKOWITZ: It certainly can 19 be done by the applicant. I would never 20 stand up there and tell you that you 21 couldn'n plant vegetation. That would 22 be ridiculous. 23 MS. TORTORA: Is there somenhing 24 in the realm of your thimking, Mr. 25 Pachman? COURT REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3168 72 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 MR. H. PA~: If you're saying 3 are we ready to put up a 100 foot tree, 4 the answer is we can't put up a 100 5 foot tree. 6 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not 7 asking to put it up. 8 MS. ELKOWITZ: Are you asking us 9 to put t0 feet to 12 feet white pines, 10 because they grow better, rapidly? Is 11 that something you're asking us to do? 12 Ct{AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. i would 13 say something of that nature. And we 14 would tell you that would be 15 continuously maintained. So if one 16 died, you replaced it? 17 MS. ELKOWITZ: Absolutely. 18 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just as you 19 have the law of diminishing the 20 remurns, here you would have the law of 21 diminishing the remurns here. 22 MS. ELKOWITZ: Don't you 23 understand, Mr. Goehringer? Wham they 24 are showing here is an 8 foot similar 25 mo those photos. These are 8 foot RAM. COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 73 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 shrubs. If you are asking Bell 3 Atlantic mo put up 10 foot to 12 foot 4 white pines, I don't think they would 5 object, and white pines grow rather 6 rapidly. 7 CHAIRMAN GOEI{RINGER: Right. And 8 agamn, if this ended up to be a 25 year 9 situation, we certainly know that if 10 they grew mo a point where they 11 actually gon into the co-located 12 area, you would probably do some 13 minor-- 14 MS. ELKOWITZ: Certainly it would 15 help. 16 MR. H. PAC~N: I want ~o end 17 this because the ~ime ms short. If 18 you're asking us to put up a tree tham 19 would grow so many fee5 each year, 20 let's put up the pole and hide the pole 21 and not use the money into the Bell 22 tower and hide it with a tree. I mean 23 the whole concept of the Bell Atlantic 24 tower was to give the area some innate 25 beauty, give it a sensuality of focus, RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (5!6) 727-3!68 74 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 and now you want to cover it with 3 trees. I don't understand. We'll go 4 back to the pole if that's what you're 5 looking for. 6 C~HAI~V~GOEKRINGER: I don't want 7 to cover it with trees, i just want to 8 make it look like it really is, an area 9 that this particular st~cture has been 10 placed and has been cared for. i1 Mk. ~. PACHMAN: We'll care for 12 our things as best we can, and we do it 13 all the time because we have to 14 maintain it for our own image as a 15 public utility. If we we put up a 16 telephone pole, you wouldn't be asking 17 us to put trees and surround each one 18 of the telephone poles with a tree. 19 CI-IAiP~NL~N GOE~IRINGER: Can I say 20 this, Mrs. Moore may not be aware of 21 this, but that building that she rents 22 was a potatoe house, and I can tell you 23 that building looks 500 times better 2& with windows in it, painted red than a 25 potatoe house. If you know what a R3~M COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 75 1 - Belt Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 potatoe house looks like, because 3 they're a drab color and have no 4 windows and they look lousey. 5 merely expanding on her suggestion, and 6 that is, the more you can make this 7 pole, this tower rather, look like it 8 blends into the community. 9 MR. H. PACHMAN: I have said to 10 you we'll do that, and in answer to 11 your question -- 12 MS. TORTORA: We will help you dc 13 anything to help mitigate the situation 14 within reason and that is a 15 cost-conscious understanding of the 16 situation. 17 MR. PACF24AN: But I find it 18 somewhat incongruous ~or a zoning 19 asmorney to impose a sen of high 20 standards on the applicant who comes in 2t here and not do the same on the 22 surrounding area, and that to me is 23 sett!ng a jewel, that is a jewel in an 24 area where the setting does not fit fcr 25 jewel. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 76 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 CPIAIRM~ GOEHRINGER: Could you 3 state your name, Mrs. Bouffard~ for the 4 record? 5 RESIDENT (CLAIRE BOUFFARD): We've 6 seen what the tower looks like. I'd 7 like no see a drawing of ~nat the 8 building will look like with the 9 towerl 10 MR. BOUFFARD: i have one more 11 question: Are you saying because you 12 are a public utility, they have the 13 rzght -- does that mean they have the 14 rleht no pun whatever they want and put 15 it on a tiny piece of property, they 16 don'u have no follow codes or 17 anything? 18 CXqAiRMANGOEHRINGER: This has 19 been an issue we have been discussing 20 ever since they have come in with these 21 applications. To answer your ~aestion, 22 they have the right to come in with an 23 application and that's exactly what 24 they have done. 25 MR. BOUFFA~°d3: If this were a RD24 COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 77 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 proper piece of property that met all 3 the setbacks and area and all, would 4 they have been granted a permit? 5 CblAIRM3~Y GOEHRINGER: No. Because 6 there's a moratorium in effect. That's 7 just my opinion. 8 Mrs. Bouffard, you may want to 9 look at the enuire siue plan here, and 10 come on down no the office and take a 11 look au it, and if there is any further 12 information you're asking in reference 13 ~o the building, we would be velq; happy 14 ~o ge~ that. Okay? 15 Certainly, the building may be a 16 little less szghtly than what we see in 17 the immediate com~unisy, but what we 18 are urying uo do is a screening aspec5 19 here and that was the discussion of 20 the urees and so on, but if there is 21 some concern, we're going ~o recess 22 this anyway. 23 MR. BOUFFARD: What is the 24 construction of the building; Mortar? 25 Brick? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 78 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 MR.F 7ALASCO: The basic unit is an 3 exposed aggregate unit. It's a masonry 4 structure. It has to meet all the fire 5 codes and building codes of the town. 6 MR. ~. PACHMAN: We also said that 7 we're going to block that with shrubs 8 so you can't see it more than the other 9 buildings that exist there, and the !0 roof line is the same as the other roof 11 lines~ and we have submitted in our 12 Orient site application pictures of 13 what the e~aipment shelter looks like, 14 and if there was some advantage of 15 making this the extarior red color of 16 the very nice red building you speak 17 of, we can make it red. 18 MR. BOUFFARD: When you say the 19 height of existing building, you mean 20 the inland Komes? 21 C~IAI~-AN GOEHRINGER: No, it's a 22 one-suory flat roof building. 23 MR. H. PACHMJLN: It's the size of 24 a garage, two car. One on one going in 25 with each. it's 12 feet width, one car RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 79 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 garage, and it's the length of 3 approximately of a two car garage, 4 excep~ they're tunnellike instead of 5 side by side. 6 CHAIRM3~NGOEHRINGER: No further 7 questions. 8 MR. DiNZIO: I have a couple of 9 questions. One question I believe this 10 gentleman's ~aestion t believe is 11 answered, and basically it is, how do 12 you gen around the fact that there are 13 two uses on this property? 14 .~.wrR. M. PA~VLAN: Mr. Dinzio, 15 will refer you back to what I said 16 before, this Board has already 17 determined on several occasions siting 18 a public utility s~c~ure on a light 19 industrial site is an appropriate and 20 proper use. Agamn, Appeal ~ &062SE a5 21 21855 County Road 48 in Cutchogue there 22 was an existing use, and there the 23 Board granted a oublic utility 24 communications s~rucnure as a second 25 use on that site. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3!68 80 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 Again, with respect to the 3 Cettu!arOne AT&T wireless application 4 you had an existing use for that 5 property and this Board granmed a 6 special exception for another public 7 utility cell phone sysmem. Sc, I would 8 say that that question has already been 9 established and that precedent has been 10 established bv this Board. 1i MR. DiNZIO: Ks this ~ower just 12 going to be for cellular phones? 13 MR. H. PAC~tMAN: Yes, and you can 14 make that as a condition we have no 15 problem with. 16 MR. DINZIO: There won't be any 17 other techno!o~cry in use five -zears down 18 the road? 19 MR. H. PAC~N: I think we have 20 said this 5o you before, because other 21 technology which I don't thir-k there is 22 because we're already into digital, and 23 this was analog before, and any other 24 use o~her than Bell Atlantic Mcbi!e 25 equipmenn we have nc problems 5o so RAM_ CO~-RT REPORTING SERVICE (5i6) 727-3168 81 1 - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex - 2 limit it. If in the future, after 3 spending all this money, Bell Atlantic 4 should decide that this pole ms no 5 longer functionally necessary or 6 needed, they're going to take it down. 7 There is no use keeping it up because 8 it makes no sense. They will terminate 9 their lease agreemenu, and agree what t0 has to be done and take down the tower. 11 They're not going to maintain all this 12 equipmenu and necassities and all the 13 accoutrement for something they can't 14 use. 15 MfR. DINZIO: I was thinking the 16 other way. I was thinking will there 17 be other uses besides cell phone on 18 this tower? 19 MR. K. PACHMAN: Well, as long as 20 it's Bell Atlantic and we are licensed 21 as pare of our public utility under PSC 22 and FCC, we would be allowed and 23 permissible to use this tower For 24 anything we are licensed ~o do, yes. 25 Unless you're saying to put a pager on RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 82 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 here, unless it's part of the sysmem. 3 MR. DINZi0: No. No. I'm just 4 asking, I don't wanu you ~o uear mhe 5 mower down. It makes no difference to 6 me. AS far as screening, I could care 7 less. 8 MR. H. PACH~3~N: If it's Bell 9 Atlantic Mobile and licensed, it could 10 be used by us, that's what it 11 MR. DINZIO: Let's get mo the 12 blue, to those blue dots represent 13 two-way communications. They represenm 14 the tower receiving the signal from the 15 phone; is that right? 16 MR. H. PACIL~_AN: Yes. It's a 17 sending and receiving station. 18 MR. DiNZIO: On the north side 19 that you had that little dip there, 20 because that area, that's low in that 21 area. 22 MR. H. PAC-~LMA~N: Right. .And am 23 that site, we have a cernain disnance 24 we can go to, and since we have a 25 proposed site in Riverhead, it's going PJaM COOLRT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 83 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 to pick up that site ~hat encloses our 3 service areas, and we'll have Dnclosed 4 those areas completely. 5 MR. DINZIO: And the blue dots 6 represen~ the minimum amoun~ of height 7 in that area? 8 MR. H. PACHMAN: The determination 9 5o cover the area which is, I think -- 10 let's hOC get our colors wrong because 11 the white area is the area for which we 12 do no~ have service coverage. The blue 13 area shows where there zs the area of 14 coverage, Exb. ibit A. So this shows the 15 area of non-coverage, the white area. 16 MR. DINZIO: So, if you went down 17 5o 80 feet, you would have less blue on t8 that map? 19 MR. H. PA~n74AN: No. You would 20 have more white. That's right, and 21 less blue. And that's why Mr. 22 Chara!let, the radio-frequency 23 engineer, comes oun with a piece of 24 equipmenn. He would literally razse a 25 crane and raise the temporary antenna, P~AM COURT REPORTING SERVICE {5!6) 727-3!68 84 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 and from that, they are able to run a 3 signal, That, coupled with their ~ software and CAD equipment, and other 5 various equipmenm~ they can make a 6 determination how they are going to 7 fill in that area. Then they go out. 8 Then the real estate person goes outs 9 Mr. Weyhreter, and finds the site which 10 is within that area, so that the area 11 equipment can be erected in that area. 12 MR. DINZIO: So this footprint, 13 the blue shows -- is representative of 14 the minimum height, 99 feet of the 15 mower. If you went lower, you can'u 16 have the service; the height of the 17 tower is intricai to covering this 18 area? 19 MR. H. PAC~3~N: That's right. 20 MR. DINZIO: If you lower the 21 tower, you ge5 less coverage? Tham's 22 all I have. 23 MR. BRESLIN: More white. 24 MR. H. PACPHW3LN: If you raise the 25 uower, you may not necessarily gem more RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3t68 85 1 Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 blue because remember I said these 3 towers site each other and based upon 4 topography, they have 5o send out the 5 signal to meet the other tower to send 6 oum the si~cnat. So, if you go 7 high, you've gone beyond the tower and ~ you've overshot the tower; and too low 9 you don't reach. So that's the reason i0 for 5he hand-off and that's the way I! this ~s going. i2 CIqAIRM_AN GOEHRiNGER: Lasu thing. 13 Then we'll retire on this hearing this !~ evening. !5 The Board has always re_quired a 16 light a~ the ~op, a light mo be lighted !7 at dusk. Does this organization have 18 any objection ~o that? 19 MR. H. PACtTMAN: Well, normally, 20 if we're near an airporn, and if we are 21 within the area of where u~!e FFA 22 requires such lighting, we would put it on. Most mcwns, BZA's~ Village BZA's~ 24 cities' BZA's do hOC warm them lit up. 25 They wanc no make them !ess innocuous 86 t - Bell Atlantic Mobile/Nynex 2 at night° If you want a light, let 3 there be light. 4 CHAIRMg2~ GOEHRINGER: I will ge~ a 5 future date. Nearing no further 6 questions, I will make a motion 7 recessing the hearing without a date~ 8 9 (Whereupon, a discussion was held 10 off the record as ~o a new date. 11 12 (Whereupon, at 9:20 p.m., the t3 within hearing was adjourned) 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 _RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE '516) 727-3168 87 2 3 CERTIFICATE 5 I, KELLY A. FLYNN, a Shorthand 6 Repormer and Notary Public of the State o~ New 7 York, do hereby certify: 8 That, the within hearing was held 9 before me on the 9th day of October, 1997. 10 That the within transcript is a nrue 11 record of the proceeding in this matter. 12 That I am not related to any of the 13 parties mo this action by blood or marriage; and 14 that I am in no way interested in the outcome o~ 15 this manner, nor am I in the employ of any of 16 the counsel. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 18 sen forth my hand this ~ay of October, 1997 19 2 0 21 KEL Y A. 22 23 24 25 R3~M COURT REPORTING SERVICE 516) 727-3168