Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/04/1998 HEARING Transcript of Public Hearings February 4, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:40 P.M. - Appl. No. 4485 - BELL-ATLANTIC/NYNEX. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Location of Property: 425 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-141-3-34. Applicant is proposing to place a new cellular transmission tower and related telecommunications structure, and requests Variances based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval corrected January 28, 1998 with respect to: has "...1) This nonconforming lot located in an LI Zone District a lot area of approximately 13,400 sq. ft. The proposed additional use with monopole and building would require an additional 40,000 sq. ft. pursuant to Article XIV 100-142, (2) the proposed fence enclosure exceeds the allowable height of 6-1/2 feet by 2-1/2 feet pursuant to Article XXIII 100-231.. All other yard requirements are proposed to conform to the zoning requirements under Section 100-244B. Present Landowner: A. Rehm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a new Notice of Disapproval that was issued by the Building Department on January 28, 1998, which affects the variance aspects of this particular tower. We can afford you copies of it, if you would like it, and we have a continuation of the Petition that we received tonight from contiguous and surrounding property owners and concerned citizens. Mr. Pachman, I think we're ready. Yes, can I help you (to Mr. Bouffard). MR. BOUFFARD: Could you explain that first part you said? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Mr. Bouffard, this particular Notice of Disapproval basically states that the setback variances are not in effect. In other words, they comply with those ~Page 2 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals setbacks. As I said, I don't have a copy right here, I can direct somebody to go over and make one for you, if you'd like. We can lay this out for everybody during a break so that you understand it. Meaning that they are in compliance. Mr. Pachman, how are you? (In response to an unidentified speaker Mr. Chairman responded: They are in compliance with the setbacks. Rear and side yard. ) MR. BOUFFARD: We are having trouble hearing you. CHAIRMAN: We constantly have that trouble. (Member Dinizio checked and the mikes were "on.") MR. BOUFFARD: What made the setback rule change? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Building Department issued a second Notice of Disapproval which they refer to as a "Corrected" as you see on top of that Notice of DisaPproval. On the top of the page, Mr. Bouffard. We'll be discussing that throughout the hearing Mr. Bouffard, OK, thank you. Please, if we are speaking and you cannot hear us, let us know and we'll all use the mikes. We will be discussing that throughout the hearing, Mr. Bouffard, ok? Thank you. Mr. Pachman, we're ready for you. How are you tonight, Sir? MR. PACHMAN: Good evening, Members of the Board. I'd like to say, hello to the two new Members of the Board. As you mentioned, my name is Howard Pachman. I am the attorney for Bell Atlantic/NYNEX. This is a continuation of a hearing we originally held on the 9th of December, as I recall. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: October. MR. PACHMAN: October, excUse me. It shows that somebody is listening. At that time, although a moratorium was in effect by the Town Board with reference to new Cellular Towers and they were eonsidering a new Local Law at the time whieh Local Law finally became Local Law 26 of 1997, we were allowed and properly permitted to present our application under the then existing ordinance of the Southold Board Zoning of Appeals, which permitted us to proceed as a Special Permit, which was permitted in all zoning classifications in the Town. When the Town Board passed their new Local Law after six months of reviewing and evaluating how they wanted to handle Cellular Towers in the Town of Southold, they made certain determinations; and during that time, we were monitoring as everyone else was, what the then Local Law was to be, and when we made our application in October of 1997, we also submitted evidence for what we thought would be the ultimate Local Law at that particular time, and we reserved the right, and the Board was gracious at that time to permit us to have a subsequent hearing after the new law took effect to see if there were any errors or any- mistakes, or any areas that we didn't fully take into account. And based upon that, the hearing ~Page 3 - Hearing TransCripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals was adjourned. Adjourned, assigned without date. We then were requested by the Chairman to contact the Building Official, to then say 'examine this application' which is in the LI District in Mattituck, and determine now that the new law is in effect, what are the required, what are the requirements, that are necessary to meet the new Local Law? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question Howard, before you, can everybody hear Mr. Pachman adequately? Would you like him to use the mike, or are you OK? MR. PACHMAN: That (cord) is always so short. I would really appreciate. I'm trying to speak as loudly and as articulately as I can, but if I'm not heard, I would like to be told. I'm also having beginnings of a cold. On December 15th, at the request of the Chairman and at our request, the Building Official issued a Notice of Disapproval, and that. Notice of Disapproval, in essence said three things, or four things that should be done. One, that this is a nonconforming use in a Long Island (sic) District because it's only 3,400 (sic) sq. ft. and it does not meet the 40,000 sq. ft. for which is required for a Industrial Site in LI District. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 13,000. You said 3. MR. PACHMAN: 13,400. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said 3,000. MR. PACHMAN: I'm sorry. Thank you, 13,400. Number 2, that the proposed fencing had to be increased by 2-1/2 foot because we had asked for an 8 foot fence, because the general code conditions with reference to fences had a maximum of 6 feet. He also said that the building is required to have a 20-foot setback for side yards and that it would require a 70 foot setback for rear yards. We very carefully reviewed that, reviewed our site plan, and made certain adjustments. We adjusted the building so that it would come within the 20-foot side yard restriction. We asked that the reduction of the rear yard be from - that's up to 37 feet at that particular time. We said that we disagreed with the issue of 40,000 sq. ft. because we had shown proof specifically that we were single and separate ownership, and we had submitted proof to the Board by a search from Chicago Title Company and that this fencing was somewhat ambiguous because although that was the general condition as to fenses when they adopted the Local Law, with reference to Telecommunications Tower, they said, minimum of 6 feet, and that's a specific section that we believe that supersedes the general Section. In any event, based upon that, we wrote a letter on January 13th outlining to the Board what was the basis of our request based upon that disapproval. Based upon that letter, the Notice of Hearing went out and that's the hearing that we are supposed to appear for on tonight. Upon careful review of the ordinance, and in making preparation for this hearing, 'we ascertain that 'Page 4 - Hearing Transcripts '~ February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals there is a second section of the code, which apparently was overlooked by at least us, at the time, when we made our review and the Code provides under 100-244, it has a specific section with reference to Nonconforming Lots. 100- 244 says: "Nonconformin~ Lots. This section is intended to provide a minimum standards for granting of building permit for the principal buildings of lots which are recognized by the Town under 100-24 are nonconforming and have not merged pursuant to 100-25." And, if you look under that Table of Dimensions you will see, that where you have a lot, as we have here of less than 20,000 sq. ft., the side yard, it only has to be 10 feet, and the rear yard 35 feet. So, if you look at the site plan we submitted with our letter in January, you will note, that we complied with both of those side yards, the rear yard and the side yard, and apparently the Building Official in his wisdom reviewed the code and made a determination that that was correct. So, based upon that, we wrote to you another letter on February, yesterday, and told you, that the problem is, we don't think that we need any variances as a result of the Building Official's so finding and we so agree. That left two remaining issues. The remaining issue was this fence height, and we take the view that the fence height, I know usually when there is a discrepancy in the code, this particular Board takes the view they have the right to come to the ultimate conclusion as to whether that is a, which one applied. But, where you have a specific section of the Telecommunications Law adopted by the Town to the effect that the height of fences shall be no leSs than 6 feet, then it's a specific one that you must adhere to, and I don't think this Board can make an interpretation because the code is specifically clear as to what it is and we're asking for an 8 foot fence. So, we comply with that section of the code. Now coming back to the issue of this 40,000 sq, ft. less the 13,400 sq. ft., when you look at Section 100.24 which defines what is a nonconforming lot, and you look at that particular section - if you'll bear with me, I will give you that section of the code, and it is here. It says under 100-24 that a lot created by a deed before 1983 is a nonconforming lot. We submitted it to you; this goes back to 1942, and that this lot has been in single and separate ownership, and handed down between owners to that date. So, this clearly falls within the confines of the code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it's 52 or 53. MR. PACHMAN: 52 or 53, we go back to 49. Here it is, I have it here, I'm sorry, thank you. The original owners back in 1942, we went back that far. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 42. MR. PACHMAN: 42, when Martin Sidor was - got the property from Rainbo, bringing it down to from Sidor a, Sidor to Sidor, 'Page 5 - Hearing Transcripts ~ February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals from Sidor to Ruland, Ruland to Ulmet and then ultimately you to, you know all of the surrounding properties in the hands of our owner, Rehm. So, this is clearly a nonconforming lot under single and separate ownership. So, I submit to you that based upon the Notice of Disapproval, as corrected, as predicated on all the submissions that we've given to you, I don't think we need more than an interpretation from this Board that we comply with the Telecommunications Act as amended, and this is a permitted use as a matter of right, subject to some subsequent site plan approval which must be applied for and obtained after we get over the hurdle, that this be a hurdle, that this Board has nothing to say on this issue because we've complied. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have one minor little problem and that is, that we do not all - MR. PACHMAN: I am shocked, surprised. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are not all in agreement with the Notice of Disapproval of January 28, 1998. MR. PACHMAN: With, with wh-? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With the most present, the one we just gave Mr. Bouffard and the one that you - MR. PACHMAN: The corrected one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The corrected one and until we get to that particular aspect and we have some unanimity on that aspect, there is a great possibility that, you know, we definitely, we're going to have to get back to you on that issue. MR. PACHMAN: How can there be a discrimin-? The one who makes under your Code, the initial determination what the disapprovals are the Administrator of that Code is the Building Official. And, I don't know how this Board independently makes a determination in contravention of the Building Official's determination if noone has appealed it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am constantly (unfinished sentence). MR. PACHMAN: that basis. There's no original jurisdiction of this Board on CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I am constantly under scrutiny for telling everyone the truth, but I will continue to do that - MR. PACHMAN: Oh, I can see to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but we are concerned on the basis of going to the Bulk Schedule for nonconforming lots. It is 'Page 6 - Hearing Transcripts ~ February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals our understanding that that portion of the bulk, it is my understanding that portion of the bulk scheduled pertains strictly to residential parcels. MR. PACHMAN: It doesn't say that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. And I think that we may be forced to make an interpretation on that basis, alright. So, I'm just telling you that's where we are at this point. It would be unkind of us, that if we chose to, if I chose and Members of my Board chose to take that aspect of this interpretation and carried that through, that we certainly would want you to, you know, expound on the area variance aspects. MR. PACHMAN: I'm ready to do that tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So, you can do that, but you may not be discussing the 70 feet and so on and so forth because - MR. PACHMAN: I can discuss that, too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. The other aspect is that if we do come to unanimity on the aspeet of the corrected Notice of Disapproval, that leaves our evaluation by our consultant, OK, minus the aspects of the new Notiee of Disapproval. MR. PACHMAN: Excuse me, what did you say? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one that the consultant evaluated the SEQRA aspects of this case. MEMBER TORTORA: The environmental - MR. PACHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I am correct that you, making no determination, this is a Type II Action and that determination made by your consultant made about the old application as a Special Permit is inapplicable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's true. That, that's absolutely true, but, I'm telling you that the end result would have to mirror this Notice of Disapproval. We could accelerate that. The Town Attorney has indicated to us that she would be very happy in doing that, but, we haven't gotten to - MR. PACHMAN: on it? Well, has the Town Attorney rendered an opinion CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On what? MR. PACHMAN: On this. From what you're saying, as to whether this is applicable from a residential point of view? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: determination. It's not up to her to make that 'Page 7 - Hearing T~anscripts ~: February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN: I don't think she is, but that's why I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's up to our determination to do so. MR. PACHMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we are going to, you know, we will discuss that after the hearing tonight, alright, and that's where we are at that point. MR. PACHMAN: Well, just so I can understand the focus of what you're telling me. If everything I said is correct, and this Board concedes that this Bulk Section of 100-244 does apply, then do I understand that my position is correct that this Board has no action to take? MEMBER TORTORA: No. MR. PACHMAN: What action does the Board have to take? MEMBER TORTORA: You still have a Notice of Disapproval that the required area in this zone is 40,000 sq. ft. You have a lot area currently at 13,400 sq. ft. That - so, to say that this, to ask us for an interpretation that you, this is a matter as of right, I'm~ failing to see how we jumped over that one aspect. Yes, it's in a single - MR. PACHMAN: Ms. Tortora, the ordinance itself says I'm a single nonconforming lot by reason of my deed and by reason of the search that I gave you. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not questioning that. MR. PACHMAN: Then, how can you question it then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: structure on the property. Because there's already a primary MEMBER TORTORA: Right. MR. PACHMAN: Well, my co-counsel (Matt Pachman, Esq.) as usual is smarter than I am. We draw your attention to two applications for which we brought to you last time, which is 4023 Cellular Telephone. versus Metro One and 4062 which is NYNEX Mobile Communications and Junge, which in both instances you said that you do not have to expand or extend the acreage and use because you have a telecommunication use. You have a precedent, you,re bound by that precedent. In those two cases, that was not your requirement, you cannot make that requirement in this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a new law Mr. Pachman. 'Page 8 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN: No, no, that doesn't change the law of zoning. That doesn't change and this new law doesn't change that issue either. It does not speak to that issue at all. MEMBER TORTORA: the same - Wait, one second here. ,Let's, let's keep on CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: on it. I'll let Mrs. Tortora and I'll expound MEMBER TORTORA: Let's keep on the same track here. The new Local Telecommunications Law, addresses, telecommunications facilities as a principal use. MR. PACHMAN: Right. No, it doesn't. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes it does. MR. PACHMAN: that. No it doesn't. I'd like to know where it said MEMBER TORTORA: Read the Bulk Schedule. Read the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me get through this. MR. PACHMAN: No, I read where, because it says the area bulk requirement set forth in the ordinance and the area bulk requirements set forth in the ordinance with reference to single and separate ownership refers you back to 100-244. That is your Bulk Schedule. You can't change that Bulk Schedule. Your ordinance already predetermines that. MR. ~BOUFFARD: Can I yell too while he yells? MR. PACHMAN: Excuse me? MR. BOUFFARD: I mean who is this guy here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. Bouffard you've got to let him, he's got, come on, quite. MR. BOUFFARD: (swearing). MR. PACHMAN: Who you talking to? MR. BOUFFARD: Who do you think you are here? even a member of this community! You aren't MEMBER TORTORA speaking with Mr. Pachman re: principal uses. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You've got to say this out loud. ahead Lydia, read it out loud. Go 'Page 9 - Hearing Transcripts ? February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: "...Towers and Equipment facility shall adhere to setbacks for principal uses in the Bulk Schedule ..... " There's nothing in here that says anything about towers being accessory use. It talks about accessory equipment. But, the tower itself, there's nothing in here that talks about it being an accessory use and I felt, that we were in agreement on this after other hearings, that communication facilities are a principal use. MR. PACHMAN: No, no. You're the one who said that based upon your precedent in those meetings that it was an accessory use to a principal structure, and that was in that particular application. You yourself raised the issue, what's the principal use? Find, and therefore this is not an accessory use. You never raised that issue, it's never been an issue before this Board before as to, that this is an accessory use and you have so held that. The Telecommunications Law has not changed that one iota. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't agree with that at all. MR. PACHMAN: Well, you have the right to do that, Mrs. Tortora, I realize that. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't agree with that at all, and the Interpretations that you are using, were made under a different code prior to the adoption of this code. This code was adopted to clarify all of those things and so, I can't see how you're taking an Interpretation that was rendered in 1992, after that the code has been amended to deal with Telecommunication Towers. So, I can't understand why you're predicating something on that. MR. PACHMAN: Let me ask this question so I understand what you're saying before I respond. You're saying that a telecommunication use under this Local Law, can only be a single use and no other use at all? MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't say that. I said, - MR. PACHMAN: Then what are you saying? MEMBER TORTORA: I said, it's a principal use and as sueh, according to the Notice of Disapproval, it requires 40,000 sq. ft. That's what the Building Department is saying. So, for you to come along and say, no, that doesn't apply, I don't agree with that and I want that put on the reeord right away. MR. PACHMAN: OK, Matthew, would you like to speak on this good question Mrs. Tortora made? MATTHEW PACHMAN: Yes, maybe, if I may. Mrs. Tortora, I think if the section that you're referring to says, "...Towers and equipment facilities shall adhere to the setbacks for principal uses in the Bulk Schedule .... " So, if we're simply talking about setbacks, that would be something different than requiring an additional 40,000 sq. ft. for a second use, and I think that the Page 10 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals arg~ument that we're trying to advance, is that there's nothing in this Local Law 26 of ]997, which changes that and as a result, if there's been a prior determination by this Board, as Administrative Board, that a Public Utility Telecommunications Tower, which is placed on an industrial site, or any site for that matter where there's already a principal use, there isn't a necessity for an additional 40,000 sq. ft. devoted solely for that. MEMBER TORTORA: I would refer you to Section 100-165B. "...The minimum lot size for the siting of a Telecommunications Tower shall be in accordance with the following: No tower can be built on a lot which is nonconforming in size to the requirement set forth below. Minimum lot area Industrial Districts per Bulk Schedule per zone .... " That's all. MATTHEW PACHMAN, ESQ.: I ~uess the argument or the response to that would be that the minimal lot area in the Residential and Marine District, was specifically set at a minimum of five acres. So, the requirements under B with respect to Residential and Marine District would be the five acres. With respect to Industrial Zones, it would be per Bulk Schedule per zone and the Bulk Schedule in the Industrial Zone has been modified by Section ]00-244 which is a Preexisting Nonconforming Lot, and I suppose that that is in concert with the general overview of this law which is to say, "Look, if you want to go and put a Public Utility Telecommunications Tower in a Residential or Residential-Marine Zone, then the requirements are probably going to be more difficult and that's why we're not going to allow a preexisting legal nonconforming use in a residential zone to have the benefits of the relaxed setbacks under 100-244." And I guess we would suggest that's the argument we're trying to put forth. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Or otherwise there would be no purpose for vipricating it between Residential Zones and Business Zones. Now, I just realized if I was being somewhat emphatic in my presentation and my enthusiasm, this Board having seen me act before knows that that was not in any way any disrespect to this Board but my vigor in which I advocate on behalf of my client. So, if I offended anyone in the audience I apologize, and that was not my purpose. And, whether I'm a resident of this community or not, I've practiced in this community for over 35 years and I know the feeling well. Well, we've come to a fork in the road. That I would suggest here is if I may be allowed a five minute recess here so I can confer with my contras and see how you want to proceed because I don't really know- what you want me to do. Are you going to make this determination and you want us to come back? Do you want us to make the application because we are ready and can argue the issue that these variances are under Saasto and Osgood are minimal in variances and therefore should be entitled to it. 'Page 11 - Hearing Transcripts ~ February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals The issue of nonconforming use as in reference to a single and separate lot is so clear that it's beyond me to understand. But, there's a theory of law which this Board knows about. If there's .any ambiguity in this ordinance, it must be strictly construed against the Board and not against the landowner. He gets the benefit of every doubt. So, you can't construe that if there's any doubt. Now, granted this is a brand new ordinance, it was just passed, there's some newness about it, there are burrs on it, but as far as the very essence and concept of what this ordinance is all about was to move Cellular Tower into the lowest zoning classification that exists 'in the town and that's LI and we're doing that in this application. The whole thing, when I heard the first talk of this ordinance and when they were having the original scoping sessions and Mr. Moore, Councilman Moore was talking about it, he was saying, we want to make it almost as a matter of right in these areas and then as we get down to the Residential Zone, we're going to then put higher and higher rebut. Well, this is the zone that is the lowest by way of classifications where this belong. The very essence of what this Board, the Town Board adopted sitting at this very dais is being junked. It's being overlooked. It's being lost. You want to look at the (interrupted) MR. BOUFFARD: You're not even looking at the Zoning Law. What are you talking about? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bouffard, come on, you've got to 'quiet.' We'll give you a chance. We're still trying to get over this hurdle here. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: And the purpose in Section 100-160 which is the new purpose clause talks about the essence of putting these towers in that very location where we want to go and where we are. We're not talking about some other application. We're talking this .application. You can't say what we talked about before. How does this application shoe horn in to this particular zone under this particular law, at this p~-rticular time? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm telling you that we have a problem with the new Disapproval. HOWARD PACHMAN: I'm somewhat, how did the Board and I just maybe I'm talking out loud and maybe out of school. When did the Board make this determination that there was a conflict? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Basically when we received the copy of the new Notice of Disapproval and that was I assume on January 28th or 29th. HOWARD PACHMAN: Was that some public session that I missed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we received it in the mail and we received it the way we receive all of our information, and we're 'Page 12 - Hearing Transcripts ~ February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals concerned about it because not all of us are in agreement with that particular aspect and that is the truth. HOWARD PACHMAN: Alright, I would respectfully once again request if I may have a five minute recess. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. We will afford the public a copy of the new map. We'll lay it right down here for you, and we'll make some copies of the new Notiee of Disapproval for everyone. (Brief recess was taken) Motion to reconvene made by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Members of the Board, I've met with my client, representative and my various people, and I think it would be a better course of action and an overabundance of caution on my part to suggest that we'd better wait before we proceed with putting in any other testimony until we get a ruling from this Board as to what position they're taking since obviously, the Board has not met on this issue, and they're going to be discussing it at some future meeting or tonight in open session. I would like to know when that session will be so I can have a reporter present so I can hear a record of discussion. I don't personally want to be present at that discussion, but then we would have a new date for which we can then know where we proceed based upon a determination that you have to make because you seem to be undecided within yourselves, within your Board, as to have a reason. (Easel was repositioned). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We briefly discussed this only from the point of view of my statement in tote, when I was referring basically to the entire notice, corrected Notice of Disapproval. It appears that there is some unanimity on the basis of the Bulk Schedule, the Nonconforming Bulk Schedule. However, there is no unanimity on the basis of the 40,000 sq. ft. as mentioned in that corrected Notice of Disapproval. So, we have basically no flexibility in that area at all. We are staunch in our opinion that this particular piece of property has a principal use on it. You are asking for second principal use and we are, you know, we think that you should deal with the area variance aspects of that - HOWARD PACHMAN: You mean the 13,400 sq. ft.? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Reading from the Notice of Disapproval, "...This nonconforming lot in LI District has a lot area of approximately 13,000 sq. ft. Presently there is an existing building in use. Proposed additions with monopole building would require an additional 40,000 sq. ft. pursuant to Article 100-142...," and that we are concerned about. HOWARD PACHMAN: Are you failing to read 100-244 and 100-247 Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts ~February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not failing to read it. telling you that that is an area that we think that you - We're HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Well, I have to know if you're saying that is inapplicable. I have to know if you're telling me that you're overruling or disagreeing with the specifie sections of the code which says that this lot based upon the proof that I've submitted to you is not in single and separate ownership and meets 100-244 and meets 100-24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If the single-and-separate search has been signed by a person who has been in the business of search and titles, which we assume it is, remember you're still under oath from the past hearing, there is no doubt in my mind that you wouldn't submit a single-and-separate search that wasn't. That was not signed by either a Member of that organization or at least a certified title searcher, then I assume that that particular title search is correct, and that the 13,400 sq. ft. lot is an existing lot within the Town. That is correct. HOWARD PACHMAN: So then what's the issue? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The issue is you are asking for a second principal use under the new law on this piece of property. HOWARD PAC HMAN: You are interpreting the, you are presumably telling me, you want to interpret the new Telecommunications Law as saying that there can only be one principal use on the premises. Is that what you're suggesting? I have to know what you're saying because I don't know how to mean it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am suggesting that you,' that based upon the Building Inspector's Disapproval, the most current disapproval and the past disapproval, that he indicates - this is Gary J. Fish, indicates that we have an existing building in use which we assume has a pre CO, and has been used. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: It does have a CO. CHAIRMNA GOEHRINGER: It does has a CO, OK, and that this particular- HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Would you like me to read it to you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: "... Certificate of Occupancy preexisting~ Z19381 dated September 24, 1990, certified that a commercial building 425 Westphalia Road, Mattituck, Section 11413, Lot 34, conforms substantially to the requirements of commercial building built prior to April 9, 1957, pursuant to which a Certificate of Occupancy was given .... " Page 14 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals So, this confirms as I've said, that this is a preexisting use. That it goes back to 1957 and I'll give you a photocopy of it to make the record more complete. This is the original. And, that coupled with the information I gave you about the other two cases which you're bound by, you keep on moving a gold post and changing the rules, and I can't prepare for a case without having a definitive ruling from this Board. I'm extremely concerned as to what's happening here. I get the feeling after you've adopted - the Town Board adopted the Local Law permitting us to proceed under this basis, there are still attitudes and persons who are doing everything potentially possible to delay, inhibit, deter the very essence of what we're permitted to do. I don't know what you expect us to do. We can't play with the gold post always changing. I have to have something definitive. I can't continue to make presentations and fence with ghosts that I don't even know who, or where they are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, all I can tell you is that that's exactly where our concern is. We suggest that you deal with the area variance standards based upon this Notice of Disapproval. HOWARD PACHMAN: Well, I think I would prefer an adjournment so I can hear if the Building Official is going to change his mind now that he's read the record as to the singie and separate. He reviews his records to see if there was a permit here, and see what his Certificate of Disapproval is, because this Board doesn't have the right to independently make that determination without that situation being held by the official who has charged them with the ordinance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a question from Mr. Homing. Do you want to present this first, Mr. Pachman, or do you want Mr. Horning to ask you a question? HOWARD PACHMAN: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't -. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Paehman, I'm curious. what the existing building is used for? Can you tell us HOWARD PACHMAN: It's my understanding, it's to be used for storage now, by North Fork Bank. It stores materials in there. MEMBER HORNING: Do you sublease it, or' something to them? HOWARD PACHMAN: We don't sublease, the landlord does. MEMBER HORNING: Oh, you're not using the existing building? HOWARD PACHMAN: No, North Fork Bank is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because the last time I saw Rice Fuel on it or Rice, you know, in general. Page 15 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals HOWARD PACHMAN: I've just spoken to Mr. Rehm - he's here and he said it's North Fork Bank. In fact, in the last hearing I think we gave you a letter that he had no objection to our using the premises. CHAIRMAN GOEHINRGER: OK, Mr. Bouffard said that the - MR. BOUFFARD. That's not a storage area. That the facilities - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maintenance area? MR. BOUFFARD: It's a deep hole. They come in and out and they work out of that building. It's not a storage area. HOWARD PACHMAN: As far as I know, it's conforming with the LI District. There's no violations against it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He's just asking the question, that's all. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: No, no. I'm just trying to respond. I'm not trying to respond to this gentleman. I'm trying to respond to the Members of the Board, and I was looking back, I was looking to the landlord. Mr. Rehm, would you please stand? CHRIS REHM: Yes. HOWARD PACHMAN: That's who I was looking at. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We didn't mean to conflict with what you were looking up. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ: I'd rather not do this on horseback, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that you adjourn this hearing so that I can review this record and respond to these questions as best as I can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We do have people presently in the audience who are concerned with the historical nature of this district. HOWARD PACHMAN: Well, I'm not ready to answer that tonight until I proceed with my case. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I have to, some of these people have personally come here and I need them to address the Board if you want to reflect you know now, you don't have to. HOWARD PACHMAN: I won't respond to them at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you don't have to respond to them. It's not necessarily. HOWARD PACHMAN: You run the meeting any way you want to. Page 16 - Hearing TranScripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other point is, I just don't understand what problem you're having with, and please correct me if I wrong, with the understanding of what we are requesting under the aspects of this Notice of Disapproval and the prior Notice of Disapproval. I understand what you're saying, that the lot is in single and separate ownership. I'm understanding that you're saying, under the Bulk Schedule this exists. And, I understand all the other things that you're talking about. But, you're still asking for a second use on this piece of property which the Building Inspector is telling us needs 40,000 sq. ft. and of which we are asking you to address under the area variance aspects. HOWARD PACHMAN: And I'm not ready to do that because you already told me that you're not willing to abide by your precedent. And, if that's the case, I may have to submit to you a Memorandum of Law, to refresh your recollection and update you on what the requirements are of you as a Board that you are obligated to do. And, as I say I don't want to do this piecemeal. I don't want to do this on horseback. I want to know. If you're telling me, you're not adhering to your prior precedent, then I want to know that, and I will address it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. before he leaves the podium? Any questions of Mr. Paehman CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll be right with you, just one second. Yes? MEMBER HORNING: If I may, Mr. Pachman. I notice that the proposed building size was cut in half on the length in your most recent proposal. Could you address that issue for us? HOWARD PACHMAN: Yes. Thank you for asking that question. That's a good question. I'm sorry I overlooked it. Originally, when this site was designed, it was designed with what we call a co-location site and a co-location site requires that the accessory structure where the equipment is housed which would normally be for a single use of 12 x 20 in a lot where you have a co-location it would be a 12 x 40. So, therefore, when the apparently the tenor of the Board, the tenor of the people here, seeing that co-location although it's encouraged by the Telecommunications Act to do that, and the Board has said before, if we won't let you do anything without 'coming back to this Board even though the new law doesn't apparently require that, we said, "alright, we will consider this a single use at this particular time" and we reduced the size of the building. MEMBER HORNING: So, you've made that so you will not have a co-location possible in that facility? HOWARD PACHMAN: Well, the only way a co-location possibility would be - if a co-location operator came in we would have to then come in and expend to do it, to accommodate these. But, we Page 17 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals would not have to come with a Special Permit with a new application before this Board, because again if we read this new Local Law, it's a matter of right, so is the site plan approval, and therefore, that's why we're trying to find out how this Board is going to react to this. I will be pleased to answer any other questions. I am sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lora. Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead, MEMBER COLLINS: Just to note that of course our new Zoning Ordinance on this topic expressly says that these facilities shall be designed to allow for co-location or be retrofitable. HOWARD PACHMAN: Well this would be retrofitable. MEMBER COLLINS: And I wanted to bring it up because I thought you were saying that your belief is that were co-location to become a reality, that it could be retrofitted, both on the ground and in the air. HOWARD PACHMAN: Yes, the tower has the capacity. MEMBER COLLINS: were saying. OK, I just wanted to know if that's what you HOWARD PACHMAN: No, no. See, one of the things, Ms. Collins, 'normally if we know in advance of co-location, we, the strength of the tower does not change as far as the tower the monopole is concerned, but the footing that would normally go in there because of any windload that would be. But, since we're going here with a very generous application of putting in a Bell Tower and that's on three strands, the chance of that happening is not the same it would be if you had the monopole and the strength of it is because of those three-legged stands that it has, or four-legged stands, depending upon which one we use, has the security and the surety of being able to support it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to go with this Notice of Disapproval, if you don't mind. I just want to be clear in my mind what you're saying. Number "1" HOWARD PACHMAN: The corrected one, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: The corrected one. HOWARD PACHMAN: OK. Can I just go to it please? Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY: too, if you need it. There are extra copies on this table here, Page 18 - Hearing TranScripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals HOWARD PACHMAN: I have my own. you know. I have to be wary. They keep on changing it, MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure. The nonconforming lot in the LI Zone. Number "1", you're saying basically tonight that you feel because of the new law, you comply with this. HOWARD-PACHMAN: No, irrespective of the new law, since the new law clearly says in an LI District, you have to have, you've got to comply with the General Bulk Schedule of the ordinance, there are two General Bulk Schedules. There's a Normal General Bulk Schedule in LI Districts. In Residential Districts. In Agricultural Districts. Each one of them has a Bulk Schedule. And then there is a specific modification of that Bulk Schedule under 100-244 which says, when you have an undersized lot as we have here which is defined as being a lot that's in single and separate ownership, which is further defined under your Code under 100m24 as being a lot that existed before 1983 by deed which was certified too, then the Bulk Schedule is now a reduced Bulk Schedule for which requires that we do conform to the setbacks on side yards and rear yards. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, so you're saying, that your contention is, that you comply under our code. HOWARD PACHMAN: As the single and separate at the site. MEMBER DINIZIO: For number "l"? HOWARD PACHMAN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Number "2", The same thing. I mean I went to all the meetings with the Committee and, yes, it was deemed that certainly the higher the fence, the less trouble anybody could get into. I don't think anybody contended that they would want anything less than six feet. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: OK. Do you want a 4 foot fence there? We could put a 4 foot fence. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, I agree. thoughts so that I know. But, I'm trying to get your HOWARD PACHMAN: respond to it. Go ahead, thank you. I'm trying to MEMBER DINIZIO: Number '3', is a Building and the Town required 35 foot setback. That is because it's a nonconforming lot. HOWARD PACHMAN: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, and you say that you comply with that. HOWARD PACHMAN: It shows it on the plan. Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I'm just writing it down here. Number '4', the purpose of the building? The proposed building is required a 10 foot setback in the side yard, and you're saying, you also now comply with that when you redrew the map, blah-blah-blah. Right? HOWARD PACHMAN: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, you're asking us here tonight, you asked tonight if all we would need, if all you would need now is for us to say that you comply, you would walk out this door and build that tower tomorrow. Is that correct? HOWARD PACHMAN: No. Absolutely not. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, - HOWARD PACHMAN: We walk out that door, we then submit to the Planning Department the requisite site plan. That would be the next step under the procedure, and we have to comply with that. MEMBER DINIZIO: words you would - Right. That I agree. But I mean in other HOWARD PACHMAN: Inspector tomorrow Absolutely not. I'm not saying I can go to the Building and say, give me a Building Permit. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. be able to do that. I know Mr. Pachman that you would not HOWARD PACHMAN: No. by the Planning Board. It's a permitted use subject to Site Plan MEMBER DINIZIO: tonight? Alright. And that's what your contention is HOWARD PACHMAN: That's right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're going to give us a Memorandum of Law? HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Well, is the decision of this Board and after I review it, is saying that you disagree with the Building Official's interpretation, I will try to suggest to you that I, well I don't want to telescope my ( ) I want to hear if that's what you do; I will prepare for this next move. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Question? HOWARD PACHMAN: another question? May I sit down or do you want to ask Page 20 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I am agonizing over whether to run the risk of mudding the waters further. Just to follow up on what Mr. Dinizio was doing, going step by step through the January 28th Disapproval. Point '1' is perfectly clear as the one that we're all agonizing over, and that is the statement that you need more space to have this use, and in order to get more space. You need go do it without the additional space, you need a variance. HOWARD PACHMAN: May I just respond, Ms. Collins? We're only taking up 1500 sq. ft. of this site. MEMBER COLLINS: Of the site. Yes. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ: Of this fifteen-hundred square feet of the total of this 13,400 sq. ft. We are using only 1500 sq. ft. MEMBER COLLINS: True, true. I'm in the same mode as Mr. Dinizio here. I just want to try to clarify some of the things that have gone on tonight because I am sympathic to your position saying that you want to know exactly what the issue is. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Thank you very much. MEMBER COLLINS: At the outset tonight, our Chairman pointed out that the corrected Disapproval had led to a certain amount of head-scratching among certain members of this Board, and I will go no further than that, and it was because of the position taken in this Disapproval to treat the setback requirements as those of Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code which are the setback requirements for a nonconforming lot, whereas, heretofore, the Disapproval had said, you needed the setbacks of "the Bulk Schedule." And I must say I read the code to say the Bulk Schedule is the Table of the back of the zoning ordinance and ]00-244 is not really the Bulk Schedule, but that's not an issue that we need to argue because I think the Chairman told you after the break that the issue of the side and rear setbacks is not the front burner here. HOWARD PACHMAN: I understand. MEMBER COLLINS: We were a little surprised that the Building Inspector, some of us were, I'm not even sure I was one of them, taking the position that the setbacks that were necessary were those for a nonconforming lot under 20,000 feet. But, I don't think that that according to what the Chairman said, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry, after the break that that's not a fighting issue I here - those setback issues. That the thing we are particularly concerned about as a Board is Item number '1', where the Building Inspector says, this lot has 13,400 sq. ft., it has a use on it, and an additional use is proposed and under the code you need more space for that, and to do it you need an area variance and that is, I believe, what the Chairman was trying to focus this on at the end of the break. Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correet. MEMBER COLLINS: Now, we got that? HOWARD PACHMAN: I would submit to you, and suggest to you, Ms. Collins, that I don't believe when the Building Official saw our revised plan, he could see that we met the setback requirement. I would be surprised to know, and I'm speculating, that the Building Official has not seen our single-and-separate ownership search to see that we are in single-and-separate ownership, and therefore in making his determination he should of used 100-244 and 100-24. And secondly, I would suggest to you. MEMBER COLLINS: As he did. HOWARD PACHMAN: Pardon me? MEMBER COLLINS: That's exactly what he did, the Building Inspector, and I don't think you're getting a lot of static here. I think there was perhaps a little surprise, but that's what the Building Inspector did. HOWARD PACHMAN: He saw the single-and-separate ownership search? That's the point I was trying to make. MEMBER COLLINS: Do I know that? No, I do not know. HOWARD PACHMAN: No, I don't know that either. So, therefore, it may be the issue that with that in front of him, he may also revise number '1,' and that would be even more understandable that he should do. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, the single and separate issue which means, for the public, that the lot shows a history going back far enough that it sort Of preexists various rules that came in later, and it's called a nonconforming lot because it's not big enough for the zone that it's in under the new Zoning Laws. HOWARD PACHMAN: Otherwise it would be a taking. MEMBER COLLINS: And the Denial number "1", in the Denial recognizes that it's, I think recognizes that it's a nonconforming lot. It states that it's a nonconforming lot which has a meaning in the code. Nonconforming means that. HOWARD PACHMAN: I agree with you, but he's not reading, knowing that it's a nonconforming lot, he hasn't addressed in my opinion as to 100-244 and 100-24. I would also submit to you, Ms. Collins, that the Building Official has not, if he hadn't or should have, read those two opinions that I gave you before, which is a matter of record in this Board where they have allowed multiple uses in the LI District and where this Board has deemed that to be accessory use. Page 9,9. - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Is that not really the issue over which I think we have, I won't finish the sentence. Is that not- HOWARD PACHMAN: Nor can I divine that myself. MEMBER COLLINS: Is that not the issue? This question you have referred us to rulings made by this Board six, seven, eight years ago in a different climate before the Town had addressed the issue of these towers before the Town had gone to the trouble of writing a zoning code on the topic, and needless to say, before I belonged to this Board. And you assert that that is precedent that we are bound by having to do with whether it's principal or an accessory use. HOWARD PACHMAN: I so submit. MEMBER COLLINS: And I think that that is something that the Board has not accepted. Am I right? HOWARD PACHMAN: I don't know when the Board, ! don't know when the Board voted on that to make that determination. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Board never voted on it, Sir. HOWARD PACHMAN: Then, if the Board didn't vote on it how is that determination made? This Board can only act by a majority vote. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, we could refer it to the Town Board. We could refer to the legislative body and ask them to aet diligent and if that's necessary, then I would put that resolution before this Board tonight because we have been advised that the Town, 'and I'm sure you know this, that the Town naturally likes to see all of the Zoning Board's interpretations. HOWARD PACHMAN: I'm sorry? MEMBER TORTORA: The Town Board. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: (inaudible). I'm not familiar with that. I have no CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Matt, do you want to address that issue that we were just discussing, or? MATTHEW PACHMAN, ESQ.: Not tonight, Sir. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The area of direction is the Bulk S che dule dated 10 / 10 / 95, where it reflects the minimum requirements for business, office, industrial, other nonresidential use and the footnote reads, "For minimum requirements for residential uses refer first to density and minimum lot size schedule for nonresidential districts and to appropriate indicate column for Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts." Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals HOWARD PACHMAN: That's not what 100-244 says. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're referring to the Bulk Schedule. That's what the new law refers to the Bulk Schedule. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: This is also a Bulk Schedule. can't divorce this Bulk Schedule from the other Bulk Schedule. I'm sorry, Mr. Goehringer. You CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm just telling you that is what the new Law says and that's why we're addressing it on that basis. HOWARD PACHMAN. ESQ: But, again, I don't know how this Board made that determination, at what meeting, at what vote where they made that determination. That's why I want to know if they're going to vote on it, and if there's going to be a discussion on it, I'd like to know when that vote is, so I can have someone here, so then I will be, I will know as a part of a public record at an open meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you, Mr. Paehman. Anything else that continues here that you want to jump in on, let us know. We are going to, if anything, we are going to continue the hearing for people that may not be available at the next hearing, and we'll go from there. There was a gentleman in the back with a sweater on. How do you do, Sir? Could you come up and just use the mike? I apologize or we could move the podium back to the mike if you'd like or you ean just use the mike. Could you just state your name for the record please? RALPH WILLIAMS: My name is Ralph Williams, and I'm from Orient. I don't come here as any function in the Town. Although I have a function here, I come as a person. I want to be sure you don't mix two possibilities. I want to ask a couple of technical questions. One of them has to do with tower height and the coverage areas that the tower is supposed to have. A second area comes up to inquire as to whether or not all of the emitters that are to be on that tower have been identified and the coverage is that those emitters have been expected to perform against have been identified; and third, has there been a submission of any of the required FCC, MPE, that's the Minimum Possible or Minimum Property Exposure levels as a result of those emitters. These are my questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Will you respond to that tonight? Now we just have to see. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: That doesn't need any response to because I said, at the outset, that the earlier meeting we incorporate all those exhibits and all that testimony by reference, there was a testimony by Mr. Corranacchia which showed that this particular tower which hasn't changed is well below the standards of the FCC as required by Telecommunications Law. We have testimony of Mr. Charallel, which is not the law under the current Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals law we have to show need or anything like that. That there is need for this tower at this particular site. We gave our radio frequency maps, and he testified that the minimum height of this is the 99 feet. So, the third one- MR. WILLIAMS: The radiation. HOWARD PACHMAN: The radiation Mr. Cornacchia testified to, that there is a report on file. MR. WILLIAMS: It's the minimum? HOWARD PACHMAN: Well below the minimum. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Williams, if based upon this, you are not necessarily happy with this, and please this is no reflection on Mr. Pachman, he did it extemporaneously and we do appreciate that, please just - MR. WILLIAMS: A follow-up question. Do you have that material? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It should be in the file. MR. WILLIAMS: OK. examine it? And then at sometime may I come in and CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. And my point in question is, that if you feel that during the continuation of this hearing, that you need additional information please submit it to the Board. We will then approve it and resubmit it to the applicants and have them respond. MR. WILLIAMS: I do not think that I will request any more information tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: reviewing the documents. No, no. I don't mean tonight. After MR. WILLIAMS: I will, most assuredly, yes. HOWARD PACHMAN: Oh, I think you also asked me, Mr. Williams did, whether we were certified by the FCC. There is a Certificate in the file where we are licensed to carry as a public utility. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't ask that, but I would think Bell-Atlantic along with couple of the other companies does in fact meet the requirements. If you like to, I'll compare licenses with you. I have some, too. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. King? JAMES KING: My name is Jim King, I'm a lobsterman from Mattituck. I would just like to comment on a couple of things and talk a little bit for a second. I think that if the people of the Page 25 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals Town of Southold are going to be stuek looking up at these towers, they should be placed on town property. The Town can get the revenue from the low rent or however it works, and I think this new law, I've been looking through it, in other words, you don't have to have a site plan if it goes on Town property, and the applieant where's the applicant made substantial effort to locate on Federal7 State or Town land? When I called Mr. Pachman the early part of January, I believe it was, and informed him I was purchasing a parcel, and I also sent a fax to Dick Weyhreter of this piece of land. I would be very happy to lease it to the Town, and then donate it to the town at the end of the lease. I don't know why they haven't approached this any further. I think it's a pretty good location. Like I said, if we're going to be stuck looking at these towers, I think that they should be on the Town land. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. King. Anybody else over on the easterly side that would like to speak? Anybody in the center? We'll start with Mr. Bouffard, and then we'll get back to you Mrs. Ashton. Mr. Bouffard? FRED BOUFFARD: Well, I'm only going to reiterate what I said at the first meeting. I'm not even going to talk about a tower. We have a building code, this does not meet the building code. If this was granted, I mean everybody could come and say, hey, I want to build this, I want to build that, but we wouldn't need the Board, we wouldn't need the Building Inspector. I mean it's obvious that it's 40,000 sq. ft. That's an acre short of what it should be. Regardless of what they want to put on this piece and if we start to get into the tower, I mean, I could come up with all kinds of things. But I don't think that even should be addressed right now. This to me is a simple thing. It does not meet our Building Code. I'm one of the property owners there, and I don't want it. I don't think this is a valid application and Bell Atlantic comes along, and they hire all these people. Why didn't they go out and find a proper piece of property to start with? I mean, they want to put a tower up, that people don't want to start with, and now they pick a piece of property that's a postage stamp. I don't know how they did that to start with and then to take all of our time to come and argue about this. I think it's ridiculous. The parcel does not meet our requirements, period. Now- he says, well it does and it's their right. Well we have some rights also, and I don't think it's Bell Atlantic's right that they could just come along and pick out whatever they want and put what they want on it. I just don't think that's our system and this is a violation of our code if this is granted; and it has all other kinds of consequences which I'm not going to get into now either. And that's all I want to say tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Ashton? Mrs. Ashton is going to speak before you first, Chris. MRS. ( ): I just have one little thing. Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that Mrs. Ashton? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. That's Mrs. Bouffard. MRS. BOUFFARD: Town. I just have one little thing to say. It's our CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ashton? MRS. ASHTON: Yes, I own historic property (Love Lane) a couple hundred yards from where this proposed tower is going up, and I can assure you that if indeed as it's as historic as it can be, you will have no value once that tower goes up. It will be an unsightly mess. I also have a message from my granddaughter who lives in the house, that she is asking that you disapprove this tower because when her mother tells her to go to bed at night, it's going to go blink, blink, blink and keep her up all night. So, if you'll please listen to a six year old, we don't want this tower. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to get back to the use of the mike because we're taking down on tape, so we'd appreciate it if you use the mike. MR. BOUFFARD: You mean I have to do this again? CHAIRMAN: No, Fred. You were allowed. On my right and your left ~ anybody on the we'st side of the room. Mr. Guyton? BILL GUYTON: I won't take as much time as he did, I hope. Anyway, I can't say good evening ladies and gentlemen and Zoning Board, because we've already met you and our worthy adversaries, question mark, of all the wonderful people that have come out to support us tonight. I wish I had been blessed with a silver tongue just for tonight but you're stuck with me just as I am. I feel we need to tell you the most important reason we do not need this tower or anymore towers in Southold Town. More than 50% of us are transplants or returning from big city life. We visit once in a while to the city and return with huge sighs for a blessed peaceful Southold Town. This is a place where our beautiful Country began. A place where Town, County, State and Federal Government were formed, and it should remain as a base. I'd like to say at the outset that we're grateful for the telephone company for many, many things we've received and need and use. Cellular, digital phones, E-mail, Internet, other things connected with computers, fiber-optic, wires, telecommunications, good service and fair prices in most of the cases. This issue is not about those things. It's about this cellular tower. The FCC, to answer one of his statements there does not make any rules about anything that you're supposed to do. I think you'll find that (inaudible). Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals Have you ever tried to rent space on a tower on Route 48 as Fred said, or are any of the other towers available? How about Plum Island? Between 70 and 80% of the petitions signers that we've given to the Board have cellular phones and they've experienced no difficulty in using their phones. I was considering purchasing one for myself from Radio Shack in December last year. I was told, that the range was as far as upper Connecticut, Westchester and even the Towns in New York City. We would really like to know what your real reason for wanting this tower is? Are we going to be a test case of some kind? On a small piece of property? We're locally in a high registered historic site area as well as a scenic area. I don't know how your historian missed that. The new path is Westphalia Road, which is a fOrte drop to the Indians and the earliest travelers between Long island Sound, Mattituck Creek and overland of James Creek, just about where the old movie theater was on Route 25. The three adjacent buildings to this proposed site are on Village, Town, and County State Land Marked Records and are numbered as you can see by the map that I have given to the Board, if they've put it up. I can let you see the one there. I believe your historian needs to do a little more research. I can count over 40 registered sites in a three block area telling you counting eight to ten more that were not listed because according to Mrs. Harry Van Liew, who is a Project Director for the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities in Setauket, New York, when buildings have been altered or changed, it's almost impossible to see them as landmarks, unless somebody specifically points them out. Mr. Fred Bouffard's business is adjacent and my place is right close to the proposed site. We can tell you what we will lose financially and immediately if you were to grant the variances for this tower and there are variances. Will Bell Atlantic reimburse us for our losses? I'd like to add here that the Internet carries over 600,000 documents concerning reasons why this Country does not need anymore towers. We'd like to end by thanking you, the Board, the Zoning Board, all the members of the Town Planning Board, the Trustees, the conscientious leaders for the things that you've accomplished ~for our comfort and security, the Architectural Review Committee for their concern, the Landmark Committee, the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, and our local Historians as well as all the individUals who I can't possibly enumerate who have helped with this research. A special note of thanks to our · (Town) Historian, Toni Booth for her invaluable support and guidance. I'd like also to thank the Suffolk Times, Channel 27, who I thought was going to be here, but I don't see him and all of you concerned friends, neighbors in Southold Town for your encouragement and support. Let's not let them down now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, Mr. Guyton, I just want to tell you, that Mr. Pachman was afforded a copy of the Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals reports that you've submitted to us. that. Just so you .are aware of MR. GUYTON: One of the named sites is right in front of this proposed tower. The other one is also Mr. Williams' building, whether he knows about it, and the other is Mr. Bouffard's building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else on the west side? Hearing no further comment, anything you'd like to wrap up with and then we'll tell you what we're going to do? HOWARD PACHMAN: No, I have nothing further to say. We'll respond to all these things when we see the minutes and hopefully we'll be able to conclude this meeting, conclude this hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We will discuss this after we recess here possibly and see what we intend to do in reference to an interp. HOWARD PACHMAN: be on the record? Will that be a verbatim transcript that will BOARD SECRETARY: It's up to the Board to decide that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: determination. It will be up to us to make that BOARD SECRETARY: Well, that is what he's asking you. HOWARD PACHMAN: I respectfully submit that it's not up to you to make that determination. The Open Meetings Law says that all discussions of this Board must be done in an open meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It does not mean that it has to be recorded, Mr. Pachman. There are people here. Everybody can listen if you'd like to stay you're welcome to listen~ too. HAIl. OLD PACHMAN: You're going to be doing it tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. HAROLD PACHMAN: Then we'll listen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I also want to mention one other thinz to you, Mr. Pachman, that we received this Notice of Disapproval on January 28th. We have not met since January 28th and tonight was the first time that we've met. And we discussed this issue just briefly prior to this meeting. So that's why I said to you that this is where we are at this particular point and this is the aspect of it. Had I known anything different, 'we certainly would have informed you of such. Page 29 - Hearing Transcripts · ~ February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY: back? Do you want to do a caucus and then come CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A caucus of what? BOARD SECRETARY: The eaucus of the Board and to eome back into the hearing? Like the Board used to do. We use to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not necessarily. BOARD SECRETARY: Are you going to reopen the hearing tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. Just where we're going. It's a part of the new agenda item that's all on this aspeet of the law as it pertains, as you mentioned. Ok? BOARD SECRETARY: item? Which meeting though is it a new agenda CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: agenda. It's a new agenda item to the present BOARD SECRETARY: To the present agenda. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Whieh we can add at any time. We thank everybody for coming in. This will be recessed with no date; and we will re-advertise. We wish you a safe home. We thank you for your courtesy, and we sincerely appreciate your input. HOWARD PACHMAN: Will we, Mr. Chairman, will you know in advance when the date is or if not, a copy, if not anything else? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but we will let you know, hopefully we will discuss that tonight. HOWARD PACHMAN: OK, fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I have to get a calendar out and see how we can fit it in with the other schedule. HOWARD PACHMAN: OK. I just wanted to know. very courteous about that before. You've been CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: was that, Fred? Ok, hearing no further comment, what MR. BOUFFARD: Are you going to hold another hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing with no date. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Page 30 - Hearing Transcripts February 4, 1998 - Board of Appeals (Member Dinizio noted he did not want a recess.) Motion carried (4-1). See Minutes for Resolution. End of tonight's hearing. RECEIVED AND FILED BY TI~iE SOUTi~©LD '- ~'~ '~ ~' ~'~