Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/16/1998 HEARINGTranscript of Public Hearings April 16, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:35 P.M. - Carryover Hearing: Appl. No. 4550 - RUTH MILLER Location of Property: 6460 Indian Neck Road ,~ Peconie. 1000-86-7-2.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you'd like to add to this? Mr. Stoutenburgh, is there anything PETER STOUTENBURGH: No, I'm here of course on their behalf. Fortunately they're on vacation; they'll be back in June. I just want to make sure thai you have questions on the survey that we tried to put together and photographs. I have copies of everything here if anybody wants to take them apart and to say hello and give their regards and they're on vacation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody have questions of Mr. Stoutenburgh regarding this? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I have one. It's just about the, one of the surveys, there, were several pieces of mail, including stuff from you. Survey, t~ese folks to the east whose name is Odell, on one of these surveys it shows a very narrow lot just east of the Millers and you refel~ to it in your letter as a flag lot. Whose is that? MR. STOUTENBURGH: That's the Odells. MEMBER COLLINS: It's the Odells. MR. STOUTENBURGH: It's sort of a reverse flag lot, and used in a way the term was used for so many years. We have a narrow piece on the road to get back to a piece that's been isolated. Well this is when it was divided, it was divided in such a way, that it has access to the water on that side. Page 2 - Hearing '~ranscripts ~Ap~il 16~ 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I just wasn't sure whose lot it was. MR.. STOUTENBURGH: That's their lot. MEMBER COLLINS: So basieally- MR. STOUTENBURGH: the second lot - The house that you look at next to them, is MEMBER COLLINS: But, that's the Odells? MR. STOUTENBURGH: No, the Odells lot has a 20 foot strip next to the Millers. And their home is set back by the Miller's garage. We have the survey here there you'll notice, I counted ( ). It is not the house next door. In fact, I wasn't aware of that until I started to look at the survey that the Odells weren't visually next to the Millers on the Bay. There the house was set back on the woods. It's actually the larger parcel of plan. The other piece of land that you think is the neighbor that is ( ). MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and that one is only 23-24,000 sq. ft. down by the water. Alright, I obviously just was a little confused by the way this was marked. MR. STOUTENBURGH: That's why I tried to get the survey set together in such a way, that I was myself I mean until this came up and we started to look through the record. MEMBER COLLINS: And it was the Odells who were raising a question of the impact on them or their view? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, right. They've raised the question. They also, we since sent copies of information to them showing what this addition would look and exactly where it was located. It wasn't going to be anywhere near where their house was. And, they actually were under the impression that some of the previous work had been done by the Millers, but, it's the property next to them that built the tennis court closer to them. We tried to send a package not only to the people but explain what they wanted explained. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I have none. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much, Mr. Stouten- Page 3 - Hearing '~ ~anscripts ~,Ap~ril 16~ 1998 - Board of. Appeals burgh. We appreciate it. Is there anybody else in the audience like to speak in favor or against this hearing? This is the first hea~ing of the evening which is a carryover of Ruth Miller. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 4 - Hearing 'xranscripts ~Ap~ril 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:38 P.M. - Appl. No. 4539 FRANK LICARI. Location of Property: Lot ~30, Map of Cedar Beach Park, 485 Orchard Lane, Southold. This is a request for a Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26, based upon the Building Inspector's September 22, 1997 Notice of Disapproval which states" "...Under Article II, Section ]00-25A, SCTM Lot #1000-89-2-7 and Lot 89-2-6 have merged since the nonconforming lots have been held in common ownership at some time after July l, ]983...under Section 100-25E, no building permit can be issued by the Town until this section has been complied with..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the map indicating lot ~29, which is approximately 108 plus or minus by 264.50 variable and that's merged with lot ~6, which is tax map lot #6~ that's tax written off lot ~7, but old file lot map #29, this is old file lot map #30, which is I assume the house lot because it shows the dwelling on it, which is approximately 115 plus or minus by 232 plus or minus variable also based upon the swale on Orchard Lane, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Licari what would you like to tell us? How are you tonight? Can I just ask you to use the mike. Oh, that's going to bother you. MR. LICARI: I have a problem and I'd like to be here so I can hear you. My hearing is off. My voice is loud enough for everybody to hear me in the court, I'm sure. I'd like to say just a few things in my behalf. I have spent many, many days researching and providing data to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LICARI: Just what my claim for a waiver. I think your review of this data should render a favorable ruling for me. Let me highlight some of the more important factors in this matter, if I may. Lot 29 was bought by Lawrence Brannigan and Margaret Swendsen on 12/6/67 and I have a survey that shows that this lot was established with monuments and should be in your file as well, but I'll take this one out, if I may. This one here. Several months later, actually in 68, lot #30 was purchased by the same parties. The idea of buying a second lot was to keep them separate. Brannigan and Swendsen were related. Mrs. Swendsen was a sister of Mr. Brannigan and the idea was for Mrs. Swendsen or Ms. Swendsen to build a home on lot ~30. And, at one time along the road a permit was granted by the town for them to pursue this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On lot #30? MR. LICARI: Yes, yes, lot ~30. I already pointed out there are monuments on lot #29 showing that property there. When Bonati and I bought the property, we were by the way in partnerships. We bought lot 29, we were home owners and lot 30, vacant land with our understanding that I had a Certificate of Occupancy for land and you were given a copy of that. We were also told by the Page 5 - Hearing ~lranscripts Ap~ril 16,, 1998 - Board of ApPeals realtor~ A.R. Sharp at the time, that they had a letter from the town signifying that lot #30 was a buildable plot and could be sold as such separately, lot #9.9. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: house is on lot #30? Just let me clear this up again. The MR. LICARI: No, lot 29. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On Lot 29, alright, go ahead. MR. LICARI: I think if you will look at the maze of stuff I've passed on to you, you'll see a copy of that note from A.R. Sharp Realty. I said before, a permit was given by the town for Brannigan and Swendsen to proceed with building a home on lot #30. They started with this thing, they got a permit application to the Board, and it was stamped as indicating that they had received it but, from that point on in, it was dropped for some reason. Mr. Bonati and I bought the home and the lot. The home was placed in his name solely and the lot #30 was placed in his name and mine so that we can show single and separate ownership. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When was that Sir? MR. LICARI: In June 30, 1983. MEMBER COLLINS: 85 I think Mr. Licari. MR. LICARI I'm sorry, you're right, I'm sorry, 85. Although I have a note that says 83 here and you're absolutely right, it's 85. MEMBER COLLINS: two properties? July of 1985, you and Mr. Bonati bought the MR. LICARI: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And you bought the one of you as the owner of one of them, and both of you as the owner of the other? MR. LICARI: Yes, retained as single and separate ownership at the time. Soon after we bought the property, are partnership dissolved and we had other properties involved and we apportioned the properties accordingly. I wound up with the house on lot 29, in my name. Bonati wound up with lot #30 in his name and similar distribution of other properties along the way which are not pertinent to this waiver. Now strangely when we were thinking of buying in Southold, we looked at lot numbers which are now identified as lot 35, 36, 37 and 38, as waterfront properties and we considered buying it, but, when we compared them with lot #30 we turned it down because lot #30 had considerably more high ground than anyone of those four. Now why I mentioned those four lots. After we bought lot ~30, the town approved the subdivision of these four lots, 35, 36, 37 and 38, which is on the same tax map. It's adjacent to our home, almost, just, well actually across the Page 6 - Hearing k ranscripts Ap?il 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals road, for subdivision. This was after we bought our place. And, it was granted to a fellow named, Robert and Algona Norkus. The approval for subdivision came through on September 23, 1985. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: peninsula ? Are you talking about the lots on the MR. LICARI: Pardon me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about the ones that have topo like a peninsula that go out. That's standing in front of your property, more to the right? MR. LICARI: Well, just to the left. It's actually in front of 30. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's in front of 30? Across from. MR. LICARI: Across the road, Breezy Path. They're four lots and the road that fronts on it, is now called, Clearview. These lots were sold to Patrick Harkin and Mark McDonald on October 16, 1985, a few weeks after the approval was granted by the town. And, these lots were then sold individually to Barbara and Frank Sieplinski, lot #35, Ross and Marge Corey, on lot 38, and lots 36 and 37 were sold, but I just don't know who the parties are. Anyway all four lots were sold separately along the way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: lot #30 from Mr. Bonati? How did you come into the ownership of MR. LICARI: I was in partnership with Mr. Bonati. Lot g30 was in my name and his name, as joint owners, and when our partnership dissolved, we apportioned the properties we had. I took over the house which is on lot 29 and he got the lot 30 in his name. So, there was just a swapping of properties. MEMBER COLLINS: That was in 86, yes? But then in 1993, Mr. Bonati's interest in the vacant lot was transferred to you? Is that after his death? MR. LICARI: Well I bought it then. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, you bought it. MR. LICARI: You see, our partnership had dissolved. It was available for sale and I bought it. At that time I placed in my name solely because my house was my name and my wife's name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And subsequent to that, what happened? MR. LICARI: What happened since then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Page 7 - Hearing ti ranscripts ~ApFil 16., 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. LICARI: Well I had a buyer for the house in August of last year. I'm sorry for the property, lot ~30. We felt that we had to sell it to make ends meet. We just were struggling a little bit on a fixed pension and I told the buyer, that hey, we have everything we need to proceed. We had a Certificate of Occupancy for the land on lot 30, and we do have a float out there and that's part of the deal and there was a float on lot 30. By the way there's also a float and raft on lot 29. So, there are two separate treatments all the time and I was advised by the ( ) people that ( ), the town turned down the Certificate of Occupancy for land. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we don't grant them anymore. don't grant a CO for vacant land anymore. We MR. LICARI: Well, it was granted at that time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, but it's not granted - MR. LICARI: But they just withdrew it. I have a copy of Certificate of Origin. So, since then I've been trying to put this on track with doing the research trying to get the Building Inspectors for reconsideration. They in turn turned me over to you people, the Zoning Board of Appeals. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let me just 'ask a question. Is the house lot presently in whose name? MR. LICARI: It's in my name and my wife's name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. LICARI: Maria. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And lot #30 is just in your name? MR. LICARI: Just in mine. Again, once we took possession of those two, we just made sure that we had single and separate ownership. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mr. Dinizio. do you have any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'm kind of wondering why you're even here. If you have two lots in two separate names. MR. LICARI: Well, we want to sell lot #30 and we've been unable to Mr. Fey that he could put a house on it. MEMBER DINIZIO: So the 83 to 85 - have you been receiving tax bills on these? Two separate tax bills? MR. LICARI: Oh, yes, of course. Let me say this. We didn't get the land for nothing. We paid top dollar for it. The time that we initially bought it in 85, we paid $110,000 for it. When I bought it Page 8 - Hearing '¢~anseripts Ap,rtl 16,, 1998 - Board of Appeals from Bonati, he was desperate and a friend of mine, he sold it to me for $100,000. This was back in 93. MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you use the land in conjunction with your house lot? MR. LICARI: I'm sorry (didn't hear). MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you use that land in~ conjunction with your house lot? You know you have anything on that land that belongs to you. Do you have a well on that property? MR. LICARI: No. And there's no well. MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have a cesspool on that property? MR. LICARI: It's heavily wooded, we've never used it, except for maybe three or four feet of it, that's all. But, it's adjacent to our property and three or four feet just gives us access to the float and the dock that happens to be on that lot. So we do use the float and the dock, but none of the land. The land is virgin land, it's very, very high, many trees and it's really very developed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, so if you sold the lot, you would need nothing on your house lot that's on that private lot? The sewer is on your side, the well is on your side? MR. LICARI: Exactly. MEMBER DINIZIO: There's no other buildings built on that lot? MR. LICARI: That's it. MEMBER DINIZIO: And that was always your intention? MR. LICARI: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, thank you. MR. LICARI: Actually Bonati had it for sale for when he had the property for several years with realtors. He was asking $200,000 and there were no takers and when he got desperate and the poor guy went down drain and actually died about two years ago from depression. He had to sell. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, well Mr. Dinizio asked the question and I did read your deeds very closely, the two chains and it's very clear, it's very clear that when you and Mr. Bonati acquired these properties in 85 and thereafter, you were very careful to keep them in separate ownership. Your problem is the technical problem. I think it's technical that Mr. Brannigan and his sister owned the lands in the same titles back in the eighties, the seventies and the Page 9 - Hearing 'x ~anscripts ~Ap?il 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals sixties and there's a period in there of about two years where our new town merger law was in effect retroactively effective and that's what has caught you up. But, I think it's very clear to me, that your intent was always to keep them separate and you did. So, I'm not asking a question, I think I'm stating my view. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You do not have town water, is that correct? You do not have town water, you have well water? MR. LICARI: Well water. They visited, both were from the Suffolk County Water Authority to come down Hog Neck with water, I got a notice from them and they plan to do it perhaps even this year. And I did indicate that yes, I go along with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: From what years did the lots merge? MR. LICARI: What years they merged? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. LICARI: Well, they never were merged. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 83 to 85. MR. LICARI: I'm sorry. You mean during that period of time? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, based upon the - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's kind of retroaetive. MR. LICARI: Except that, even during that period, the intent was to build a home on it for Mrs. Swendsen or Ms. Swendsen and actually there were surveys done and subdivision was processed by a lawyer named Michael Hall and he was paid for the subdivision indicating to me that it went through. And, there were surveys made to reflect the subdivision and apparently that subdivision issue came up because of the two year business that we just disclosed. Attempt was made to even correct that matter in those two years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us the square footage for each one of those lets? The square footage for the lots? Do you have that figure, 29 and 30? MR. LICARI: Well, it's right on the survey. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have it. It's 24,000. MR. LICARI: About 7/10ths of an acre. MEMBER HORNING: About 7/10ths of an acre? ~Page 10 - Hearing franscripts ~ Ap. rtl 16,, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: What is it, Linda? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: for the vacant lot. For lot ~, excuse me, it's 24,000 MEMBER TORTORA: And for the other lot? · MR. LICARI: (interrupting) if I can make one more statement. The 7/10ths of an acre is - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One second. researching this. We'll be right with you. Just a minute, we're MEMBER TORTORA: The other lot, Linda. Do you know? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The other lot wasn't on the survey, but, we can calculate it out according to the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I got it. MEMBER COLLINS: Reading, Lydia, my notes say that I read it off the survey and I got about 27,000 sq. ft. for the vaeant lot and about 27,500 for the house lot. The assessor's cards show more. They show over 30. But that's the vicinity that we're in. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But it may be as low as 24,000, so I would like to use a variable if we could. MEMBER HORNING: 26,075 for lot 30. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, go ahead. MR. LICARI: OK, I just want to indicate, that as far as the size of lot, almost all of the lot is, good high ground. Very little wetland. Particularly on lot #30, there's about 10 feet on one hand and zero feet on the other at the water's edge. The rest of it is all high ground. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you Sir. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 11 - Hearing transcripts ,Ap~ril 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4554 - D. LAVEGLIA. Location of Property: 3000 Soundview Road, Mattituek; Parcel 1000-94-2-3. This is a request for a Variance based upon the following two' Building Inspector's Notices of Disapproval regarding an application for a permit to add deck and railing on an accessory building: (a) disapproved February 24, 1998 under Article III, Section 100-33A because "...accessory building will exceed maximum allowable height of 18 feet...," and (b) disapproved March 6, 1998 under Article III, Section 100-33B.3 because "...accessory building on lots containing between 39,99-79 sq. ft. require such building be set back no less than 10 feet from any lot line. Staircase of 3 ft.+- will now be within 9+ feet of the rear lot line .... " CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated July 6, 1992, indicating the house, the frame garage and the inground swimming pool. The garage which of course is the nature of this application and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surround properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Could you state your name for the record? MR. BOHN: Yes, I'm Bob Bohn, Contractor. I'm here on behalf of Laveglia. This is a summer house. They are not here during the week. We're the ones doing the work on the building. The building is existing. It's always been there at least 30 years. We raised the second floor. Only the rail is above the 18 foot height. None of the building is above the 18 foot height. Just the 30 inch rail will be exceeding the 18 feet. The stairway is in the back of the' building. They had seven letters out to the neighbors. Those seven came back. Only one of the neighbors can see the garage. The rest of them can't even see the garage. There is no objeetion. But, the railing if you look at the blue print, whih was designed by an architect, there's a big part of the design of the building and it's not intrusive to anybody. The plot in back of us, the house is on five acres. . The house is probably 5 to 600 feet away from Ms. Laveglia's garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the purpose of the top? MR. BOHN: Observation deck. It's a piece of property up there on Sound View Drive. It's way up on a hill. It's the highest point there. It had, this building had an observation deck on it before, but they made it a storage, and now that this is only like I said, only the rail. The architect took into consideration the height of the building which is accessory building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high is the building? ,Page 12 - Hearing' £ranscripts , Ap~ril 16,, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. BOHN: Right now, it's just at the 18 foot mark where the deck would be. So the railing has to be able to stick up at least 30 inches. But you'll only be looking at railing, not building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're in effect telling me is, correct me if I'm wrong, that this railing really looks like an open widow's walk? MR. BOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sort of speak? MR. BOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We'll start with Mr. Homing? Questions? MEMBER HORNING: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: for? Yes, I had some questions? What is this used CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's going to be storage for now. He's a musician. He plans to have a studio there. There's no plumbing in there. There's just electric outlets. No sink, no toilets. MEMBER TORTORA: So, it's used for studio? MR. BOHN: Well yes. It's not intended to be an apartment at all. It's not very big to begin with. MEMBER TORTORA: There is a letter from an adjoining property owner in the file who expresses concerns about this. MR. BOHN: That's the only one that can see the building. MEMBER TORTORA: And the concern centered at the height of it apparently the neighbor feels that it will destroy the privacy of their back yard and there's concern that the deck area would be used as a party during the summer and so on and so forth and maintain that in fact the deck will be about 45 feet higher than their property. MR. BOHN: That's only because of the land. Their house is set a good 5-600 feet away. It's not obstructing their view. If anything, they never had a view there. Ever since this whole thing started, they just had a huge cedar tree built right in the back of the garage. It's higher than the garage. MEMBER TORTORA: We had a similar application up in Orient. just wanted to give you an opportunity to address it. 'Page 13 - Hearing x'ranscripts .Ap?il 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. BOHN: It's like I said, all of the other neighbors, the driveways are built so high, they can't even see the building, the other six. And when it goes over, it opens down to the other one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any other way of screening it from the neighbor any further? Any other trees that can be brought in? MR. BOHN. They've already planted cedar trees higher than the garage as it stands from the neighbor (). MEMBER TORTORA: property I a - To me that's ( ), but when you look at the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did see the tree but it wasn't that ominous looking and it concerns me when I - MR. BOHN: Yes, it was just recently put there. MEMBER TORTORA: There is quite an elevation there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yes, no question about it. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not unreasonable to see their eoncerns. MR. BOHN: I mean as far as, I don't understand how it could. The privacy is so far away. It's five acre plots there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to go back there and see if there's any other way that it can be screened from the neighbor. That, that's my ultimate goal. MR. BOHN: I just thought that that stairway is on that back porch too. Now if that's going to cut, they'll still be room for planting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what I was thinking you know, and this way there wouldn't be any real concern then. MR. BOHN: You want to go get the site plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I have to be honest with you. I quickly looked at the rear and did not, I was more enamored, let's use the phrase with the house and how beautiful it was. Not that I wasn't looking at the garage, I was certainly looking at the garage. I certainly saw the entil~e but, I did not zero in on the rear of the garage. MR. BOHN: And if you go there and look, you could probably go inside now. There's one window in the back that you could actually look right at their situation and you'd be looking right at that cedar tree. I don't know if they plan to put more there or what trees. The tree has to be 30 feet tall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And they planted that there. ~Page 14 - Hearing ¢'ranscripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. BOHN: They must of had a high ( ), when it happens. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: take? How wide is it? Well how much of the garage does it MR. BOHN: Feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: YeS, in your opinion. MR. BOHN: About 10 foot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean how many more can be planted there? I'm certain their view is going to be toward the water. MR. BOHN: On this property, you wouldn't put a tree that big. It would have to be a different kind of tree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Poplar or something. MR. BOHN: Yes, or a different evergreen that's straight in growing instead of pyramids. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well why don't you come back with us and investigate that, see if there's anything that could be planted that would possibly screen this from the property line. MR. BOHN: Well they would have to be above the deck height. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, it just has to be able to grow that high, I mean you know what I'm saying. We certainly wouldn't expect that you would bring in a tree that would be as high as the one that you described on your neighbor's property. MR. BOHN: ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Our concern is, that the trees be continuously maintained and that type of thing. Certainly when we put screening in an application, you know we understand that the trees start at 6 feet, 7 feet, 8 feet, whatever, but, that they be continuously maintained and you know a tree like that grows a foot and a half a year considerably. MR. BOHN: They make mention that some of the other trees blocks view in the summer. Again, this is a summer house. People are not there, only on the weekend. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I didn't get a chance to go look at the property until today and of course you couldn't see a blessed thing up there in the fog. What can they see from that observation deck? MR. BOHN: Well they're looking right over at Long Island Sound. ~Page 15 - Hearing ¢'ranscripts .April 16,, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: You're, they're high enough up that they can see over the trees and the houses? MR. BOHN: You can also see the Bay, literally. That's the whole idea of this. You can see both bodies of water. MEMBER COLLINS: So they want to be able to look to the Sound View? MR. BOHN: Again, a lot of it was the architect's design. This railing has a lot to do with it. If you look at the building, the way it stands, it looks odd now because of the way it's set. For a stairway and a railing in the back it's a very odd looking building. That's probably why they put the tree there. MEMBER COLLINS: That tree you and the Chairman just had a good discussion about it, but, I lost track who planted the tree that we're talking about. MR. BOHN: The neighbor. MEMBER COLLINS: The neighbor whose land abuts. That's what I thought~ but I wasn't sure. MR. BOHN: I don't know if they're going to continue planting, so. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Bohn. I don't know if we should hold this over or I should just go out and inspect it again. MR. BOHN: Well, I can talk to them ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we hold it over. We really don't have any room on the May 14th calendar do we. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Why don't you ask him if you want to keep it open or do you want to just a - CHAIRMAN .GOEHRINGER: Do you want to keep it open and discuss that with your client? MR. BOHN: Yes, if it helps. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'Well I mean this is a pretty serious you know concern from the neighbor. I realize they have an extremely large piece of property and their house is quite far away from this particularly. I think they have about a 3-1/2 acre piece of property~ 5.3 actually. ,Page 16 - Hearing ~'ranscripts .April 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. BOHN: It's only because the house is down in a hole. But, there's also a horse farm between the garage and the house. If you look down, that's also down in the hole. But we do have a direct shot at their deck that they're talking about, but you know, it's 500 feet away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so what do you want to do? You want to leave it open and talk to your client? MR. BOHN: See if they agre to planting? MEMBER DINIZIO: You're talking about a month, right? talking a month, right Jerry? You ~ re CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to be talking at least a month before you come back to us now. MR. BOHN: It'll be the next meeting? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Or they can - MEMBER DINIZIO: trees in there. Or we can close it and just ask you to put some MR. BOHN: I'm almost reasonable like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: then we'll - sure theY'll plant the trees, they're Well we might as well close it then and MR. BOHN: I think it was in reverse at one time and that's why this is I don't know, get back time. They have horses over there in the summer and these people when they went for their variance they this is a repeat before th6y owned it ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will go on the record to tell you Sir, that it was not the horses. I will go on the record to tell you it was the four wheel vehicles that was the problem. MR. BOHN: I don't know if it's the same owner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I can remember quite consistently that we had several hearings on that application. MR. BOHN: It's all corral now. see any ( ). It's all horses in there. I don't' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I think that that because they're very well disrupted by the horses, so now it's horses, you know. But, I mean fortunately, but I believe that was one of the major complaints at that time. That was during the construction of the house. We had the application on the horse barn itself. ~Page 17 - Hearing transcripts April 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. BOHN: front yard. That had to be a variance because that's really their CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. Alright, so we'll close the hearing. What I'd like you to do if it's not an imposition for you and I know you're up there most of the time, give us an approximate width of what you think the maximum tree that we could plant would be in between the property line so that we would not intrude on the neighbor's property. MR. BOHN: would be. I'll have to get the landscaper. What type of tree CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well not even his concern. I'm concerned more with the width of the tree, alright. So if you would just give us a measurement. I know you've told us 9 feet and I know you told us the width of the stairwell is approximately what, 3 feet? So, that leaves us 6 feet, right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well say 6 feet high. How high, 6 to 8? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I would say starting 6 to 8, yes. MR. BOHN: But that will grow 20 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but I'm saying manicured and continuously maintained you know should grow a foot 'and a half a year. MR. BOHN: Will you speeify evergreen? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we specify evergreen. We don't tell them what kind of evergreen but we specify evergreen. MR. BOHN: It'll have to be a solid tree, we can't use - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bohn? Yes, and how wide is that garage Mr. MR. BOHN: 24 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 24 feet wide, alright. So you'd want to plant at least six trees, 6 feet apart. Something like that. That's 4 feet apart, right? MR. BOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that they would in effect grow into each other but, at the same time have enough light so that they would vegetate themselves. MR. BOHN: OK. Page 18 - Hearing ~ranscripts ,April lq, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we thank you very much. Let's just see if there's anybody here that would like to speak in favor or against this hearing? Seeing no-one, we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. .Page 19 - Hearing ~'ranscripts April 16., 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:14 P.M.- Appl. No. 4556 -THOMAS KEAN Location of Property: East End Road, Fishers Island, N.Y.; County Parcel ID 1000-4-3-10. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's November 10, 1997 Notice of Disapproval, which states: "...application for a permit to construct addition to an existing nonconforming guest cottage is 'disapproved on the following grounds: An existing building with a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed, or restored...pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-241A..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated February 7, 1986, indicating the approximate placement of the main dwelling and the existing cottage. The nature of this application is to propose the addition to the existing cottage, and copies of CO, etcetera and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on this? Hi, how are you? We ask you to use the mike if you would. MS. YOUNG: My name is Susan Young. I'm representing the Keans. I'm sure you've read our application that they own a 9 acre parcel on Fishers Island. I would like to put an addition on to a small building which has been used as an extra bedroom over the years since it was first built in 1950. I think that, well most of the buildings were built in 1950. The Keans have a large family with three grown children, one of them married. They have used this house as a summer retreat and family gathering in place. Everyone goes to the house all at once on busy summer weekends and naturally bedrooms are in demand. Especially since there aren't any hotels on Fishers Island. The Keans were turned down for a permit based on nonconforming use. We do question whether the building really is a nonconforming use. The fact that it was a legal cottage on the survey, it a little bit misleading. It makes the building sound like an extra house which is really more than it is. A house is more than just a bedroom and bathroom. We think the size of the structure and the lack of facilities make it to leave an accessory building. To say that because people sleep there sometimes it's an extra house, well I think it's stretching the point. The structure is subordinate to the main house and it 'depends on the main house for cooking and other living facilities. The section of the code that I've been reading that I think supports this point is 100-31C and this section talks about customary structures, its use is incidental to the primary structure. In fact it's unusual for large properties not to have some sort of bunk house or accessory building whose use is to house and hold for guest. By my reading these structures are customary to accessory buildings. There are an awful lot of them on Fishers Island, particularly on the larger properties and I don't know what you're reading more of this but, I was reading - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just stop you here. We do not allow any sleeping quarters in any accessory buildings and quite ,Page 9.0 -Hearing ¢'ranscripts April 16~, 1998 - Board of Appeals honestly this would be a much more difficult hearing for you, had this not existed, just so you're aware of that. But, just quickly describing it to me and I'll let you continue. We have no cooking facilities in the building at all. Is the building heated? MS. YOUNG: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's strictly summer use. MS. YOUNG: It's just summer use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I'll let you continue. wanted you to be aware of that. I just MS. YOUNG: Well I just wanted to talk about zoning regulations that meet there because the zoning regulations you know that for areas where most people live, are duly based on the problem of overdevelopment where one home owner might interfere with the other. Whereas on some of the larger properties, if somebody is saying, ideas were applied to them, it might limit the improvement of their existing the buildings that have been there for quite some time and it almost stop the property from being modernized and ultimately discourage families from going there and using the property and making things less interesting as time goes on. At any rate, aside from technicality of you know whether of the exact regulations that apply. We hope the Board will consider the nature of the property. The parcel is unique, on a semi peninsula at the end of a private road, it's isolated and there is plenty of room for the addition and it would be a shame to unduly restrict the Keans' enjoyment of their property when to my knowledge it wouldn't have any adverse affect on neighbors and we hope that the project is up to the spirit of the zoning laws. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you're anticipating to add? What is the actual square footage 'that MS. YOUNG: Well it would more than double the size of the building. The building is small. Maybe, I don't have the exact measurements. Maybe 20 x 20 or so and this would make it larger. The scale of the land there is substantial being 9 acres and when I walked on the property with the photographs and the renderings I thought it was an improvement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and what are we actually adding to the dwelling? To the cottage? MS. YOUNG: You're adding another square of the exact same size with a small link between the two so that there would be more bedrooms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Still no heat, still no kitchen? MS. YOUNG: No, that all in the main house. ~Page 21 - Hearing x'ranscripts ,April l&, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MS. YOUNG: They were thinking that maybe they would have to link the property to the other building so that something like this built. But, in a way that might be a bad idea because it might (changing of tape) It might be good for one of the bedroom areas to be able to keep it separate rather than have the house get so enormous. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll go with Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: What is the plans for the new attachments, you know for the new bathrooms? septic MS. YOUNG: I don't know. I can find out. MR. HORNING: Would you please, whether or not they intend on building anything with the septic system or attach or disattach to it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you find out if it's hooked into the existing system for the house and if not, what are you anticipating to do with the new? MS. YOUNG: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: interrupt. Excuse me George, I didn't 'mean to MEMBER HORNING: No, it's quite alright. And correct me if I'm mistaken~ but, the premises are at the last post in on a dead end road? MS. YOUNG: There at the end of a cul-de-sac. cul-de-sac, it's just a road that ends. It's not a MEMBER HORNING: The dead end road directly under the dead end road and approximately there may be three other houses on that road, a large estate. MS. YOUNG: Yes, I actually had to inform five property owners. I don't know if they were landowners or I'm not sure but, there were five people that were informed and to my knowledge no-one has objected at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: posting. I need the affidavits of mailing and MS. YOUNG: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before we end the hearing. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to calculate how large the structure is and you have a very nice set of plan here and all I can say is ~age 9.2 - Hearing ~'ranseripts ~April lq, 1998 - Board of Appeals that the new structure or the new addition looks to be about 1-1/2 times larger than the existing structure which is what, 20 x 50? MS. YOUNG: Oh, no, I would say the existing might be 20 x 20 and maybe the middle might 20 x 50. Well, I shouldn't say that because I haven't actually measured it. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, you have 21.3 and 11 that's 33 x 20 for the, 33, 34 x 20 for the new addition. MS. YOUNG: What ( ). MEMBER HORNING: 5.5 ( ). MS. YOUNG: Alright, 20 x 20, so let's say the new addition might be 600 sq. ft. or so. The existing is 400, so that, but it is on a 9 acre parcel of land. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? You said that they would consider adding this to the existing house? MS. YOUNG: They don't want to and it doesn't go. It seems like it would be anesthetic improvement you might actually if you were, let's say, theoretically you could add a breezeway between the two, but, this would be building more, not less, and what they've done, is the plans have limit the way the main house looks so that they look kind of more together and more like one. MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't let me, I .guess I'm back to the same problem with Mr. Goehringer, Patti. The Plans are beautiful. It makes it look like a house, to put it bluntly which you end up with two houses on one piece of property. It may have started off as a small cottage, but when you add on, how many bedrooms are in the existing cottage? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: House, that's more than a cottage. MS. YOUNG: I think just one. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: One bedroom that is? MS. YOUNG: Yes. MEMBER TORTOA: There is a bedroom, a living room, and I can't see what the, it doesn't say what's in the existing guest house now. MS. YOUNG: Well, it looks like there would be sought of two you know areas for sleeping. MEMBER TORTORA: Two bedrooms, bathroom, it looks like a little (' ), and you're adding on two bedrooms and a bath and I guess the thing I'm having trouble with, it looks like you're making a house. 'Page 23 - Hearing ~'ranscripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Another house is what we're saying. MEMBER TORTORA: A second house. MS. YOUNG: I don't think they are though. MEMBER TORTORA: What we're saying is, in Southold we're only allowed one house on one lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's of course the reason why you were denied by the Building Inspector. MS. YOUNG: No, because this house has been there since the 1950s. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but you're asking to double the size is where the problem comes in. MS. YOUNG: Yes, but I think if you went there you would see that it actually isn't an appropriate size for this space that it occupies. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We understand that. Why don't you. What would you say the estimated footage between the house and the cottage would be? About 75 feet? MS. YOUNG: Let's see, just look on the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't necessarily say on the survey. MS. YOUNG: It's about the length of let's say the new cottage. So, if that's 20, 40, 50, maybe it's about 50 feet away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You could in effect link it to the main house? It could be tangent into the main house. Not necessarily connected but, I mean connected, but not necessarily utilized by hallway but connected to the main house. MS. YOUNG: You could put something like a pergola or something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't allow those either. There's no pergolas, there's no breezeways, there's none of that. We're saying, abutting, tangent to, right on. MS. yOUNG: bit - I guess, but it's kind of dictating the design a little CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No question about it. MS. YOUNG: Because this is somewhat of an esthetic choice and to make the building all of one kind of blocks everything off from the water and doesn't allow people to circulate very freely and it's not their fault, it was built this way you know they inherited it, I mean not inherited it but they bought it the way it is. ~Page 24 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A?ril 16,, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We understand that. We're just saying that our code does not necessarily dictate a 50 or 60% increase. Well based upon one or the other, whatever percentage you want to play with. I would like you to go back to the applicants and tell them if it's not an imposition that we would like to see it attached to the main house and come back with a plan. MS. YOUNG: Well so then would this be a hall or more building? BOARD SECRETARY: Well Jerry, if they attach it, then they don't have to come back because they wouldn't need the variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: variance. That's right, they wouldn't need the MEMBER TORTORA: the main house. You will never see us again if you attach it to MS. YOUNG: past. Well, I think, you know, we have to ( ) that in the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tortora are you done? Alright, let's continue here. Mrs. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: As I see it, this is in what, a three acre zone? MS. YOUNG: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: have? A three acre zone and how many acres do you MS. YOUNG: Nine. MEMBER DINIZIO: Nine acres. MS. YOUNG: And they also own three islands off it, which makes it ten something. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean as I read the code, I mean you're allowed then you're allowed three acres for each house. For each residence, that's the way I read the code. MS. YOUNG: Well you know, you could look at it that way. There certainly is enough. That's what I'm saying, there's enough space. ~Page 25 - Hearing l'ranscripts .April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZlO: Right and I'm wondering just you know, What you could subdivide also I assume. You may even be able to get three lots out of this with a slight variance. MS. YOUNG: Yes, but of course he's not interested in doing that. He just wants to do his simple project. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I'm just kind of exploring the possibilities here, and am just tryin~ to put in things in really things into perspective as a 600 sq. ft. addition to a rather small building already and what impact that's going to have on a 11 acre parcel. I'm trying to convey to you that not everybody up here fee.is that this is not a thing that should be turned down. MS. YOUNG: That it's not unreasonable. MEMBER DINIZIO: My reasoning is mostly is that certainly you could attach to the house but then again, you could just build a second story on this house and add another what, 7 or 8 bedrooms? MS. YOUNG: ( ). Oh, you could add many, many sq. ft. to the house MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure, and you certainly have enough parking there for the extended family. So, I guess what I'm saying and speaking to the Board, is you know, this doesn't sound like an unreasonable request to me and certainly they've had their application in long enough that I don't really feel that there's any reason to even bargain here when you're talking about 11 acre parcel. We've done certainly a lot worse than this and I'm speaking of Lee's Vineyards, you know, where we set off had him set off four acres because he wanted two residence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was a two acre zone. MEMBER DINIZIO: He wanted a garage with an apartment on top. He wanted a house and he ~ot that. He set off four acres from his vineyard. You're talking about the same thing here basically the same thing here only with more land. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER HORNING: I think that we, those islands are separate. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at least 10 acres here. MEMBER HORNING: No, it's nine. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, I'm looking at nine acres on a 3 acre zone. MEMBER HORNING: It's a dirt road. And I will say that it's at a dead end street. ~Page 26 - Hearing ~'ranscripts April 16., 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I fail to see how that would have any effect on whether or not they subdivide it. I mean alt I would say is that they probably chose to a, they're a victim of where they chose to put the house. MS. YOUNG: Yes, the house was put in a - MEMBER DINIZIO: place. Right, no probably at the most advantageous MS. YOUNG: Well, it's sited nicely on a piece of land, but. MEMBER HORNING: Well wasn't it placed rather awkwardly right on the lot line of two different pareels? MS. YOUNG: Well yes, but, I was corrected on that by the Assessor's Office. He said that some of those lot lines were' from a very old map that really is not in effeet anymore and the survey has just been reused so that lot line probably doesn't really exist in aetuality. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dinizio? Can I comment on your comments Mr. MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's incumbent upon me to inform the applicant, that we don't allow this building. Since it is preexisting that is the reason why this lady is here representing Mr. Kean. You are absolutely correct in indicating that there are nine acres here. I now come to the point where I was going to say, state which you clearly brought up and I do appreciate that. If there were no further subdivision on this property, possibly something could be worked out because we do have nine acres, there's no question about it. MS. YOUNG: I know he's willing to agree to that because I told him that if he agree that it wasn't deed for one lot, without any you know, without any going back, that he would lose the right to build on the other lot and he immediately agreed and said all he wanted to do was to enlarge this building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ladies and gentlemen? Alright. So what do you want to do MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to deal with it on that basis? Alright, we thank you for your presentation. While you're standing there is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against this application? This is the Kean application 4556. Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ~Page 27 - Hearing ~'ranscripts · Ap~ril 1§, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. ~Page 28 - Hearing l'ranscripts April 16,, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:37 P.M. - Appl. No. 4557 - DOROTHY THOET Location of Property: 380 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, N.Y.; County Parcel ID 1000-145-2-3. This is a request for an Interpretation under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A which reads as follows: "...Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings..." Action is requested for an Interpretation to confirm that a variance is not required for the applicant's proposed reconstruction of an accessory structure. In the alternative, a variance is requested under Section 100-242B(1), based upon the Building Inspector's November 26, 1997 Notice of Disapproval and an existing nonconforming setback location. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had the pleasure of visiting your site, Mr. Ehlers, which is magnificent. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight, Sir? MR. EHLERS: Good evening. I'm Richard Ehlers, 456 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, attorney representing my aunt, Dorothy Thoet, who is present and her daughter Caroline Thoet. They own the front house, the bathhouse is owned by John Ehlers, myself and my mother, Elizabeth. She is in Florida, she is not available to be here this evening. I also have a letter from the neighbor, Mrs. Teter and I would like to present in favor of the application, and also a decision rendered by your Board November 8, 1995, Appeal #4350 McCarthy, which I'H make reference to later. Unlike the previous application this is a conforming use. The structure is nonconforming because of the setback from the bulkhead and that area requires 75 feet. We've been to the Trustees, Mr. Costello who is the builder, is here with us this evening. If you have questions of him, he processed a successful Trustee Application and we have a letter of non-jurisdiction because of the bulkhead from the DEC. Mr. Robert Brown, the architect of Fairweather-Brown is also present. He was instructed to design the building identical in most respects footprint-wise, perhaps a minor architectural detail is different. But footprint-wise identical to the existing structure which was built by Wick Gildersleeve for my grandfather in 1932 which has existed since that time. ~Page 29 -- Hearing rranscripts .April 1§, 1998 - Board of Appeals And we think it's quite clear that Town Code Section 100-242A says "Nothing..." and I take nothing to mean nothing, "...shall prevent the remodeling, reconstruction..." and it even talks about enlargement, but we're not seeking an enlargement, "... of a nonconforming building containing conforming use .... " Now unfortunately we run into a little problem with the Building Inspector. He goes down to Section 242B and says that notwithstanding the language "Nothing..." in "A", "B" is something that does create a problem, and that's the 50% rule and it's his position that when Mr. Costello demolishes the existing building which is a functional, serviceable building, which has existed since 1932. But when he demolishes that building, he says "at that moment it's demolished and therefore it's not a building that's functional, it's a demolished building and as a demolished building, you fall under 'B'..." And he spun my head, and I hope it spins your head and therefore grant the interpretation which your previous decision, I believe, will lead you to follow that the nonconforming structure with a conforming use may be reconstructed-completely. Mr. Costello is here and he can offer testimony if you wish, in detail that the primary need for this structure is the foundation. The top of the structure is functional. However, years of storms and batterings have caused the foundation to slightly tilt and therefore should be shored up and if it be his testimony if he were asked, you're welcome to hear from him directly, that new pins or pilings must be put under the structure, if you're going to do that, you might just as well go ahead and renew the entire structure since although Mr. Gildersleeve was truly a gifted builder it has given its useful life at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the approximate size? MR. EHLERS: You have the plans, Mr. Brown? MR BROWN: 7'4". CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Brown to come up? And the height? Maybe you want to ask CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight Mr. Brown? ROBERT BROWN: I'm fine thank you, how are you, Sir? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Do you just want to give us some specifics about the structure itself? MR. BROWN: Sure, the new structure is designed to the footprint and height of the existing structure with the exception possibly of a matter of a few inches in the trim work, molding, on top of the structure. The structure is 7' 4" by 16 feet, approximately 8-1/2 feet to the top of the deck and another 32" in the handrail above that. ,~Page 30 - Hearing i'ranscripts ,April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and what does this house now? MR. EHLERS: It's a bathhouse. It has a four separate bays traditionally one would have the children's toys, one would have the beach chairs, the end one has a shower - cold shower. I don't think anybody has been in that shower in a long time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and all the doors would open to the outside. There would be no internal doors or anything of that nature ? MR. EHLERS: There would be no internal doors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Basically separate cubicles as it exists right now when I looked at it. MR. EHLERS: Right and the redesign actually enlarges the center cubicle because what we found is the narrow cubicles just aren't practical for the storage of, you know, rolling in lawn chair. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there would be no heat. would be the utility of electricity and water? There MR. EHLERS: There would be a hose bit, correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: would be there. So those are the only two utilities that MR. EHLERS: Cold water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: start with Mr. Dinizio. Cold water only, yes. I guess we'll MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, Mr. Ehlers, you should be aware that the code reads the way the Code reads and we all know that Section 242 presents intellectual difficulties because it appears to contradict itself. You are not by any means the only person to have run into it. I just say that because I think you expressed a view suggesting that we should be surprised. We have been through this saga a number of times. I'm not sure I have any questions. I think this is a absolutely garden variety case of the building whose setbacks don't conform. It's old and needs rebuilding and I guess I'm sympathetie. MR. EHLERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. ~Page 31 - Hearing franscripts ~April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you. Hearing no comments from the Board, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor or against this application? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion Carried. See Minutes for Resolution. ~Page 32 - Hearing l~ranscripts · April 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals Chairman suggested taking a 2 minute break. All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Meeting reconvened. 7:53 P.M. - Appl. No. 4555 - DONALD H. MeALLISTER Location of Property: Private right-of-way off the north side of East End Road, Fishers Island, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-4-4-1. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's August 27, 1997 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving an application for a permit te alter an existing cottage on the following grounds: "...In an R-120 District, a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use, Article XXIV, Section 100-243A..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated October 11, 1972 indicating the approximate placing of the main dwelling and the placement of the garage and the guest cottage and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area plus a CO from Howard Terry, Building Inspector and I believe we're going to speak to the same lady again. Would you just state your name again for'the record. MS. YOUNG: My name is Susan Young. I'm representing the McAllisters. They're 4.4 parcels located directly next to the Kean's lot on the same road at the east end of Fishers Island. They would like to put a new roof on their accessory building which they have used as an extra bedroom over the years. This property also was built in the fifties. If you compare the existing roof and photographs to the new roof I think most people would agree that the new roof looks better. The change is very small. The floor plan will remain precisely the same and unchanged. The roof is now flat and leaking. The main house has pitched roofs and partly as an esthetic consideration and partly for practical reasons the McAllisters would like to change the profile of the roof. We think a~ new roof would benefit the appearance of the property and make the building seem more like one which is more in conformance with the spirit of the code. The pitch roofs are also (coughing) than flat roofs. The application was turned down for nonconforming use. We could argue about whether or not this bunk room is in fact a conforming use. There is no kitchen, and this building is quite small. But, probably even more important facts is that this change would really be considered maintenance for a repair. The building is too close to the property line. It was built long before modern zoning and what the McAllisters would like to continue to use it and don't want it to fall into disrepair. Also because of restrictions on the building within 300 feet of the tidal wetlands it would be difficult to place all of these structures further back on the lot. As a matter of fact they did a type of zoning analysis, John, which ~Page 33 - Hearing i'ranscripts ~April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals represents the distance of from the wetlands and the distance the structures are from the front Yard as well as the buildable area and after I did it, I was surprised that how good the original builder was in placing it close to what we would like now, although it's not right on but, I could submit this also, if I may. You can pass it around. You can place this right over the survey it's a tracer. The structure is just a few feet from the main house. It's not separated by hardly anything. Maybe 5 feet or so, 4 feet. The building is well screened by trees to ,the neighboring properties. There are no objections to the project. The only difference I think would be the appearance and beeause it wouldn't do it any harm and that it's a prac'[ical repair. We hope that you might grant a permit for this project. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Existing footprint, maintenance on the roof, changing the roof line, there will be an overhang on the roof, around the, with a hip roof situation? MS. YOUNG: I believe it'll be similar. It'll tells us exactly how it will be. We can look on the plans. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears to be that case. The reason why I asked the question, it would behoove the applicant to put leaders and gutters on this house so as not to and then run the leaders and gutters into the small storm drains at the base of the foundation and I might request that as a condition. Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: First, the other accessory buildings since there are at least two accessory buildings on the property is used for what purpose? MS. YOUNG: I don't know. I haven't had to do with it. I'm not sure and I couldn't look in the windows. I just went to the property you know and the place was closed Up and I looked at the building that we're concerned with. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me George. You're referring to the one that I have labeled garage? Is there an apartment in there, is that what you're saying? MS. YOUNG: I think there's two guest cottages. MEMBER HORNING: There's one on the right-hand side. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, it's labeled garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's labeled garage. MEMBER HORNING: not that. Well there's an upstairs portion to it and it's Page 34 - Hearing x~ranscripts April 16 1998 - Board of Appeals MS. YOUNG: And that's where you drive your cars. That's where the entrance to the property is. I'm just saying that I can't say that I've been in there because the house was closed up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certainly it's a different application now because it's income, emplacement, you know emplacement basically which I don't have a basic problem. MEMBER TORTORA: Well I think here we're leaning again on making it what it is. I mean conditions. Attach it to this here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, any other questions? Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well certainly what got you here was that overhang. As I see it, they said it was an enlargement and I have no problem at all with this. I don't know how gutters will work out though, Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well there on the house already. I'm looking at the house right now, so, you know, we'll request the same basic situation. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright, alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean it appears that they are trying to mirror their roof line that's on the house. MS. YOUNG: They are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It seems to be quite beautiful. Is there anybody else while Ms. Young is up there, that would like to speak in favor of this application or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. We thank you again Ms. Young for your great exhibits. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 35 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A?riI 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:03 P.M. - Appl. No. 4558 - JOSEPH BENDOWSKI Location of Property: 3060 Park Avenue, Mattituck, N. Y.; County Parcel #1000-123-8-19. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's February 27, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving "...an application for a permit to construct a rear deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling on the following grounds: "...under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, proposed construction at 49+- feet will be within 75 feet of an existing bulkhead..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated May 1, 1997~ indicating the proposed deck on this reconstruction of this two story framed house an a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Just state your name for the record, if you would. MR. LUDLOW: I'm Tom Ludlow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tell us Tom? How do you do? What do you want to MR. LUDLOW: Well not much. I've been hired by the Bendowskis to renovate their house. They're here by the way and we would like to put a little deck on the back of the house. Unfortunately that's within 75 feet of the bulkhead. But the thing is they live on the water and we really want the deck on the water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Noticing from the plan it's 14 feet in depth, approximately 29 feet across the front or the back we'll say. The deck will remain open on all sides, on both sides? MR. LUDLOW: Yes. deck. It'll have a railing but, they propose an open CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the actual elevation off the grade on that? Do you have any idea? MR. LUDLOW: Above grade on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. LUDLOW: It's got to be about roughly a foot and a half. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of this applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't think so. It's 51.1 feet is that it? MR. LUDLOW: 51 foot 1 inch. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's all I have. Page 36 - Hearing ~ Transcripts April 16, 1998 - BOard of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER'i: Well we have 49 in the original Notice of Disapproval and what you're telling us is that, that's not correct, it's really 51.1. MEMBER TORTORA: He's taking it to the outside of the bulkhead, not to the inside of ( ). MR. LUDLOW: ( ), thanks for verifying it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but the bulkhead is definitely not 2 feet wide. I can tell you that even the cement bulkheads are 2 feet wide. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It could be 18 inches. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: which is 7-1/2. It's probably about the width of a 2 x 8 BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: minus in the disapproval. Well that's why you have plus or CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: It's hard when you go down there without trespassing all over the place to get much of the sense of what the neighboring properties are like. Do other people have decks? Are they as close to this one to the bulkhead or are they lesser? MR. LUDLOW: I'd say it's in line with the surrounding properties which are tend to be kind of close to the water. One neighbor is actually in the water. I'd say it conforms with the surrounding properties. MEMBER COLLINS: I think that was my only question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The house is set back how far from the bulkhead now? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 51 plus 14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 51.1 plus 14. MEMBER TORTORA: 65. MR. LUDLOW: 65 feet or so. MEMBER TORTORA: So the house right now is 63 feet from the bulkhead and the deck that you want to put on if they're going to would make it 49, OK. MR. LUDLOW: Plus or minus. ~ Page 37 - Hearing'-Transcripts ,April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we should use a round figure of about 50 plus or minus to be honest with you, particularly if they intend to exceed 30 sq. ft. on any steps or anything. Remember the steps are not necessarily calculated unless you get into something that's quite large. MR. LUDLOW: Right you'd obviously going keep it under 6 feet, around 6 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you sir. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing and if not, we appreciate your coming in, we appreciate your bringing in the applicants. They have a beautiful spot there and we hope to have a decision for you in about two weeks. Is there anybody else? I think there's someone else that wants to speak. We thank you. Yes Sir? MR. MICKLEBANK: My name is James Micklebank. I'm the neighbor directly to the east of the Bendowskis. I would like to speak in great favor of their application. Everybody is chuckling a little bit about the 49 feett tour from the bulkhead. Before the Bendowskis were here, there was no bulkhead there. The bulkhead was in a dilapidated condition which threatened the property on both sides of the Bendowskis and they have done nothing but improve the land and their home and we in no way object to it, it will not block our view, it's just an addition to their house and we think it's very fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for coming in. Anybody else would like to speak either in favor or against this application? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 38- - Hearing 'l'ranscripts ,April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:12 P.M.- Appl. No. 4559 - CHRISTOPHER PLIACONIS Location of Property: 345 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport; 1000-35-6-7. This is a variance request based upon the Building Inspector's January 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit for a proposed accessory swimming pool structure in the rear yard area, for the following reasons: "..,Under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule in the R-40 Zone: Proposed construction will exceed the allowable 20% lot coverage. The lot area is 12,780 sq. ft.; at 20% the allowable area would be 2,556 sq. ft. Present coverage with dwelling and deck is 2,553 sq. ft. Swimming pool, as proposed, is 568 sq. ft., bringing total lot coverage at 3,121 sq. ft. or approximately 24.4+ percent..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey which has no specific date but, shows the approximate placement of the swimming pool at approximately 4 feet from the rear property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could you state your name for the record Sir. MR. SALIMONDO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Scott Salimondo, 199 East Main Street, Smithtown, N.Y., for Christopher Pliaconis who is in court tonight which is fine and able to appear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, what would you like to tell us? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes, as already indicated on the application with regards to what we are proposing we must admit, that the proposal is actually in effect, the swimming pool has already been erected and it was erected due to the builder or the pool builder had submitted an application I believe for a permit sometime in October. He had assumed that the application was going through. Starting in December, he started to put the pool in without actually having gotten in the building permit. Thence forth, the building inspector came down and I believe it was then known that the pool had exceeded the lot coverage. Since that time we've put in this application in attempt to rectify the situation and come to you in order to get this building permit and also to get a variance with regards to the zoning requirement. As already indicated in this particular area there are other buildings that have been granted lot coverages increases by this particular Board. There's a home across the street which is at 350 Snug Harbor Road, which I believe had before this Board asked for lot coverage increase and has received one. In fact, the home owner who had that done, was Mr. Joseph Duggan who is in court today and that was for a deck right across from Dawn Lagoon Drive. In the area itself, there are other residences that do have homes with pools and decks in them at 350 Dawn Drive and also at 1245 Wiggins Lane, which is within the immediate vicinity, next to the house in question. I believe by the way that was 330 Snug Harbor Road. That is the home of Mr. Joseph Duggan. Not 350 as previously stated. The increase would be for approximately 5.1% over the 20% permitted R-40 lot coverage Page 39 - Hearing -l~ranscripts ,April 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals which is per statute as has been indicated by the home owner. Landscaping is going to be done in conformity with the zoning requirements and also in conformity with the way the neighborhood is being used and in very clear consideration of the neighbors that are surrounding this particular property. We've taken great pains to talk with the neighbors and we tried to rectify any misapprehensions they may have with regards to it. The .Pliaconis are a married couple. They have one small child. This is not being used in attempt to have parties or things of that nature. They have had a swimming pool in the back yard which is in conformity with other requirements as far as lot coverage and also as far as where it is in relation to the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you do the calculations, the ones that are handwritten? Are you familiar with that? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I noticed that you did bring it up to 5.1. In looking at the approximate three-quarters away down the page, we're talking of proposed lot coverage present of 2,553 in reference to the swimming pool. The 656, is that a deck? MR. SALIMONDO: That would be the pool itself which is the earlier calculation, 16 x 36 and 8 x 10 deck which I believe is also preexisting at this point it would bring it up to 656 or 3,209 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question I have is that there literally is no deck around the swimming pool at this juncture except for what you are just mentioning. MR. SALIMONDO: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this point? They're not anticipating anything else at MR. SALIMONDO: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's never any attempt to enclosed this pool in any way or anything of that nature. Any wire or anything of that nature? It'll remain open to the sky? MR. SALIMONDO: this. Not at all. There won't be any attempt to do CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing, any questions of this attorney? MEMBER HORNING: I would like to know how it is, that they managed to build the pool without a building permit? MR. SALIMONDO: Again, this is from the person who constructed the pool~ the organization. Apparently they submitted a permit to the Planning Department, the Building Department, in October. Page 40 - Hearing :~'ranscripts ~A?ri!. 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals They did not hear from the Planning or Building Department and this is again coming frOm the builder because the ground was getting hard and they needed to put the pool in after waiting four to six weeks. In December they put the pool in. They dug the hole and naturally put the pool in at that time. It was anticipated that they were getting approval for it and apparently the person who built the pool did not know at that time that it had exceeded the lot coverage requirements. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: With the deck addition, you would be over 25% of the said lot coverage, is that correct? MR. SALIMONDO: Excuse me? MEMBER TORTORA: With the deck addition that has not been built, that you would like to build, you would be over 25% lot coverage is that correct? MR. SALIMONDO: No, in other words that's, the 8 x 10 deck that it shows I believe is the deck that's already preexisting with the house right now and I don't know if that was actually added in when the 2553 figure present coverage was actually inserted. The pool itself is 576. The 8 x 10 deck is 80 feet and I believe that has already been preapproved, but, I didn't know if that was included in the 2553 figure. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't think so. You're asking for total square footage of 3209, right? Is that right? MR. SALIMONDO: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: That's your calculation, is that right? Just based on what the Building Department had, which was about 31, that would have brought it up to almost 25. That's correct, it would be over 25. MR. SALIMONDO: If the calculations let's say before was 25.1. MEMBER TORTORA: We have several letters in the file of two neighbors who are objecting to this pool. One of them has asked us to reconvene this hearing or postpone it so that they could seek legal counsel because they were not able to be here tonight. Many times in the past we have honored these types of requests to allow a neighbor an opportunity to be heard and I would like to allow the neighbors an opportunity to be heard. That's my personal feelings. It doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the Board agree with me. Page 41 - Hearing i'ranscripts .April 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was waiting for this. We were basically going to go through the Board first and I was going to bring this up. I had at least one conversation with this contiguous property owner on the phone the other night. I assume the purpose of his notice is to do exactly what Mrs. Tortora is saying and we normally do grant one request. MR. SALIMONDO: If I may speak Mr. Chairman? As far as the Hellmans I've been in contact with them over the last several days. Their comments basically are surrounding whether or not a fence would be put up so that they could not see the pool and whether or not there would be evergreens there. We gave a letter and assurance as to that Mr. Chairman and indicated to them that of course would be done and it would be done tastefully in compliance with the surrounding area. They indicated that sounded good, they wanted it in writing, which is what we put in. This is the first time I'm hearing other then my conversation early this afternoon they were going to ask for an adjournment. We certainly (change of tape.) That we want to comply with the good neighbor policy and we will comply with what their requests are so tong as everything is going to be final. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I'll repeat Mr. Horning's question which is why are we looking at a pool that is illegal that was built illegally? I personally am very distressed. I think it reflects an attitude on the part of your pool contractor. Things are slow at Southold Town Hall, forget about it. And, I'm a very troubled by this pool. I think 25% lot coverage is very much beyond what we as a Zoning Board have considered a reasonable variance. Mr. Salimondo you stated, oh well the neighborhood has many cases of lot coverage, you implied, up to 25 or more. But, we certainly haven't seen any evidence of that. Not that I think the evidence would make a big difference to me if it reflected long. existing things. Had you come in for this variance, I surely would not have let you have it, absolutely. I guess I don't have questions, I just wanted to get on the record with that. MR. SALIMONDO: Ms. Collins I appreciate that and I understand your concern and we certainly, the home owner certainly is distressed at the fact as to how it happened. We know how home owners feel. If they contracted somebody and the contractor said, we'll take care of it and that's what they go about doing. This home owner himself, he and his wife, are very distressed that they come here in this exact situation. They didn't want to be in this situation. They wanted their pool, and they wanted their permit and they wanted no problems from neighbors and here they have it. So, now- they're looking for a way to do that. To be good neighbors, to satisfy the requirements that were put in the community. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. Yes, I'm concerned how the pool builder did it. I cannot speak to what he was thinking his mind said. However, the situation is now a course of ( ) and the whole question is, what will be done by this Board Page 42 - Hearing l'ranscripts April 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals and what is the relief? Is the relief that we seek totally out of line with what this Board can grant? As I indicated across the street at 330 Snug Harbor Road, this Board granted 27.1% variance on a lot coverage. That to my calculation is at least 2% over what we have. And, that's directly across the street: It is done, it has been done, and I would assume that where appropriate this Board will continue to do. I don't think what the Pliaconises are trying to obtain here is totally out of line with the character of the neighborhood, no-one will create any harm, there is a practieal difficulty certainly involved with this, one, which you might say is of their own making, but again, I would say that the detriment should not go against the homeowner. Practieal difficulty would be now that this pool is built, they will lose a great deal of money if that pool has to be now plowed in and plowed over and of course it is a consideration and it's something that we just want to bring up to the Board's knowledge. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman while I have the floor, I just, this is just an arithmetical point. There was given some give and take between you and Mrs. Tortora about deck. The way I read all of this, there is of course a little deek on the back of the house. That's the 360 sq. ft., in addition to the dwelling size. The pool itself is 16 x 36. As I read the plans, there is an intent to put some kind of an 8 x 10 deck type structure next to the pool. I certainly didn't see it when I was out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was the purpose of my question Ms. Collins. The point is, that anybody who owns a pool, as I had clearly stated on the, I believe application over by the high school, that the ground has to be completely flat. If it is not, and I don't where that is quite honestly, this happens to be a relatively flat rear yard, but, OK. In some way, in some area, you are going to exceed lot coverage in the installation of something that you're going to put around this pool. Either adjacent to it, or ingress and egress or around it. So, what I was actually doing in a very nice way, was warning the attorney, that I know you're going to increase lot coverage more than what you have at this particular point. MS. COLLINS: It may even be beyond what these calculations show. OK. I mean it's just more of a an already bad situation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We haven't gotten to that issue yet. The issue still is, what kind of greens are we going to plant? Meaning, evergreens, in order to satisfy the rear property. I realize there's a letter here from Mr. Hellman to you, dated April 14th. What size fenee are we going to use? Which way is the fence going to be turned, and to what degree are we going to complete the pool process within the fenced area? And, those are all the questions that I basically have for you. I'm not trying to take the wind out of anybody else's sails or anything of that nature at this juncture. But, you know, you can either address them now~ or, we can go to Mr. DINIZIO and let him - Page 43 - Hearing l'ranscripts ,April 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SALIMONDO: Whatever Mr. Chairman you would like and it's always your pleasure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I would just like to say to you, that I mean I don't need to know what pool contractor it was, but, certainly I myself personally have been the, at the butt end of that joke before, and you know, I know how it feels to have to come beg now for mercy so to speak. I also, know how it feels, when someone tells you basically that you know, what you've done is wrong and you had no control over it. So, I think that more or .less, you know- you may be restricted as to what you con put around that pool, as far as a deck is concerned. Perhaps maybe some patio block, or something like that, so when you get out you don't get grass clippings all over it. Expanding it anymore is probably going to be real big. I mean going anymore than 26% if that's how you want to look at this, is going to be probably a problem. But, certainly on a small lot, you know, the houses, you know a nice house, and I see you've got a nice deck there. And, certainly you have a concrete driveway that by all rights, is no different than a swimming pool. You can just take and pace your whole front yard and not ever have to come here and have cover your lot that way. You chose to put a pool in. I think you relied probably upon the contractor that he would do the right thing. And, I mean if you can supply any of his paperwork, that would be kind of a good indication. Also, who was the contractor, was he local? MR. SALIMONDO: No, my understanding it's T. Abraham & Associates, located in Huntington. MEMBER DIN!ZIO: So they were aware. Did they have a contract with the pool company themselves to build a pool? MR. SALIMONDO: I believe they did. At this time I'll see if the homeowner has that and we can supply a copy of that to you. MEMBER DINIZIO: That may be helpful in finding out just who was responsible to get the building permit. MR. SALIMONDO: Very good. We can supply that too. As a matter of fact, I have the proposal here that was sent if you would like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. It looks like a fax. MR. SALIMONDO: And it's a fax. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: issues, are you done Jim? Alright, so in addressing the other MEMBER DINIZIO: No, because we're going to talk about stockade fence. We're going ( ). Page 44 - Hearing '£'ranscripts ~A~pril 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: issues resolved after - Are you going to come back with these MR. SALIMONDO: If this court is going to adjourn as they indicated and we'll address these issues, we certainly can do it at that time and have a fuller proposal of the landscaping and fencing in order to show that to all of you and then we can address the issue at that time, if you so compel us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and you will then transmit that issue to the Hellmans and to the other property owners? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes. I will do that. I believe that the other property owner that sent in a message is an absentee property owner. I believe his concern was noise issues which is interesting because I don't believe his property is actually improved. But, in any event I will ask this Board, the Pliaconises are here along with their across the street neighbor, Mr. Duggan, who did apply to this Board for a lot coverage and he did get it. And also, if you would like to hear from him at this time, and if we can then perhaps on the next date, I would come and report the final proposal to this tribunal rather than have them come in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's entirely up to them. MR. SALIMONDO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record? Hi, can you state your name for the MR. PLIACONIS: Chris Pliaconis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. PLIACONIS: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. PLIACONIS: Well I'd like to say that the surroundings around the pool we don't plan on putting a deck. And, I do plan on doing plantings all around trees and doin~ a little walkway aroUnd the pool area and put the diving pool off the steps. If I have to, I will shorten the deck, the existing deck that was there with the house' and I'm also going to redo the deck as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you may be removing the deck is what you're saying? MR. PLIACONIS: If you would like me to shorten it, I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we haven't gotten to that point. MR. PLIACONIS: Right, I mean, if it's a problem that I want to add around the pool area is a patio I'll shorten the deck. Page 45 - Hearing transcripts ,A~pril 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only if it's above, you know, mean grade. MR. PLIACONIS: No, it's going to be even with the ground. I did redo the whole front of the yard, so if it's a problem with what kind of landscaping I'm going to do, you can see the job I did in the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think what you have to do is, you have to pass whatever you intend to do around the pool, to the Building Inspector, to see if he's going to calculate that to be lot coverage or not, so that we have a total composite of lot coverage that we know what we're dealing with. And, that's what I'm concerned about. MR. PLIACONIS: As far as a fence, there already is a fence surrounding the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're talking about the privacy fence for the neighbor in the back that a - MR. PLIACONIS: Well I was going to plant arborvitaes all over the back, L shape, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whatever you plan on doing, we'd like you to communicate that to the neighbor. In particular Mr. Hellman, and of course the other neighbor too. MR. PLIACONIS: The other neighbor has an unoccupied lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know, but, just send him the same letter with the same proposal so that in any case if they would like to comment between now and the next hearing, you know, that they would be able to comment. Any questions of this applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: Other than just say that the neighbor that lives in Florida, the one that owns the empty lot - MR. PLIACONIS: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, my opinion, doesn't have much of a case in that she's mostly objecting to the noise coming from the pool in which if you had a ten acre lot, it didn't exceed lot coverage, would have absolutely nothing to do with this application. So, I mean, yes, write to her and tell her what you're going to do. You know, it's real nice to do that. Treat your neighbors nice, but, I think that she, that person needs to know that you know, you're entitled to have a pool. You're problem is not that pool. It's the fact that it's so large. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else? MR. SALIMONDO: Yes, there is one other person here. I don't know if you would like him to speak this evening because ( ). ~Page 46 - Hearing ~'ranscripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. We need your affidavit of posting. Good evening sir, how are you? MR. DUGGAN: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please state your name for the record. MR. DUGGAN: My name is Joe Duggan. I live at 330 Snug Harbor Road and I've been there since about 1986. Previously Mrs. Fitzmaurice owned the house that the Plianconises own now and Mrs. Fitzmaurice passed away I think probably 1991 and the house has been vacant since then. What happened was her sons and daughters took care of the house and you know, they kept it up pretty much, but, it was really in a deteriorated condition. Mr. Plianconis came in and bought the house and he's done a terrific job landscaping it and put whole new siding on the house and it's really attribute to the neighborhood that he's done this. I'm a contractor myself. I'm an electrical contractor and people rely on me to get a permit before I start working, and I can see how he got tied up in this. I don't think that his attitude was one of disrespect. I think that he just a, he's a business man, he's very much involved in his own business and he relied on somebody else to get the permits. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Thank you for coming in. Mr. Salimondo, you have something else you want to bring up? MR. SALIMONDO: No, that was - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was it, alright, so that's what you're going to do, right? MR. SALIMONDO: Board date. Yes we'll do that and bring this before the next CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we're going to set a hearing date. We're not sure if we have an opening on May 14th at this juncture. How does it look? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I would say we do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do, alright, we are going to put it on. MR. SALIMONDO: That would be May 14th? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we don't know exactly what time but, we'll let you know. MR. SALIMONDO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Anybody else that may not be here at the next hearing? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to May 14th. Page 47 - Hearing ~'ranscripts ,A, pril 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 48 - Hearing £ranscripts ,A, pril 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:33 P. M. - Appl. No. 4560 - ROBERT AND ANN SHANK Location of property; 820 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. 1000-111-1-19.1. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit for an addition to existing dwelling for the following reasons" "...1) The proposed construction being located on a nonconforming lot of approx. 5,000 sq. ft. (land above ordinary high-water mark) in an R-40 Zone will exceed the 20% allowable lot coverage by approx. 700 sq. ft. Existing square footage of 1,287 with addition - 1,987 sq. ft. Pursuant to Article XXIV, 100-244B. 2) Proposed construction encroaches on the allowable front yard set back of 35' pursuant to Article XXIV 100- 244B..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the site plan dated 2/10/98 and there will be a re-submission or a new submission and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. You want to give us yours now? Just state for the record who you are. MR. ARM: My name is Craig Arm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do Craig? MR. ARM: I'm good, how are you. apologize I only brought three copies. Can I give you this. I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that's enough, we'll share. MR. ARM: Do you want me to just briefly go over it, real quiek? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: have? Yes, is that the only copy that you MR. ARM: I have one more eopy. The existing, what we're asking for is a set of stairs in the front and we've actually changed our ( ) cabaret ( ). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: this? What's the date, the new date on CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The date of the new one is, 4/15/98. MR. ARM: On the revised site plan. Over the last few days, I had discussions with Mr. Shank and as the house has been raised and the actual final elevation of the house is being established with a temporary set of stairs that is in place. Mr. Shank has stressed to me, who does not have health condition. He basically, it's a very, it's a very difficult situation for him to go up and down the set of stairs which are currently there. So, the trade-in basic what we were asking before was a set of stairs, we were actually, we would Page 49 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A~pril 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals like to request a handicap ramp to extend from the existing corner of the house to ( ) section which would extend out through the entire roadside of the house ( ) front door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How wide is that Chris? MR. ARM: It's a three foot ramp. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, what else would you like to tell us? MR. ARM: The existing house currently has a rear deck and basically it's a sidewalk with existing sheds for water tank storage and things of this nature. Once the house has been raised, the sheds now with the walk that is there, is also being raised, so it ( ) the sheds. On the opposite side of the property where it comes air conditioning equipment and there's ( ) walk upgrade, frankly the?e asking for a 5 foot deck/walk also to enable for the air conditioning equipment and other equipment required for the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: on the east side. Which side is that on? Oh, I see, that's MR. ARM: That's on the east side. It would, since obviously it's virtually impossible to expand outward anymore on the lot, we hope to some day we will deal with something on the second story and reapply modification as his children and grandchildren are returning back to the house and since the existing house is so small we would like to request a small ( ), 3-1/2 feet x 16 feet berm which would be in front of the house, which would basically move the front entrance out and also just provide access for a stairwell to the second floor if someday in which event they are able to do it. The only other additional in front of the deck would basically be to accommodate the handicap ramp which would be extended from the parking area adjoining up and that would just service a small area which is actually necessary so you can get through the front door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, this .existing deck to be raised that you have in the north east corner, what is the nature of that? MR. ARM: The existing deck. there. It's really just a - That's just a small deck that's CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now is that, is that now part of it? Is that now attaehed to the building? MR. ARM: That is actually attaehed to the existing deek which is in back of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Is that deck ground level or is that elevated to the sky right now as the building is elevated? MR. ARM: That deck right now - Page 50 - Hearing ¢'ranscripts ,April 16~ 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it there Robert? MR. SHANK(?) There's no decks there now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no decks.' They're taken down. MR. SHANK:(?) The intent was to raise the house exactly on the same footprint, utilizing the same decks. I'm not asking for virtually anymore other than the handicap ramp to get up to the front door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, that deck is to be showed all the way moved to the property line, is that correct? MR. ARM: It's. just a decorage that was there. MR. SHANK:(?) There was elevated deck already, ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, when you use the word, raised, you're referring to demolish at this point, or is it actually going to be raised? MR. SHANK: It was demolished in the, in. trying to remove it. splintered, cracked and - It MR. ARM: In attempts to raising it, they were raising it, that the equipment a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: exis'rence position? Is that deck to be replaced in its MR. SHANK: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Just for the record that was Mr. Shank answering the questions along with Mr. Arm. Going over to the west side of the building, all of that decking is to be relocated to the elevation of what we are now have as the structure, right? MR. ARM: Actually no, the, where the sheds are, ( ) building which are approximately 3 feet lower than the main building those decks would have to remain there so he has access to the sheds as well as storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the decks to be raised to the elevation that we have now, are the ones on the north side? The north west? MR. SHANK: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, the entire deck along the east side, the enclosure of the actual deck that existed prier to the elevation which is now there by the way, and then the handicap ramp across the front. Page 51 - Hearing franscripts ~A~pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ARM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, yes, Mr. Shank? MR. SHANK: On the east side, I don't know if it shows everything that was here, but there was a deck to get out of my kitchen door, there was a patio there, there was an outdoor shower, which you go down the house toward the street, and then there was an air conditioner compressor. I'm just asking for that same thing to being placed higher so that it's there. Again, I'm not trying to go - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's on the east side? MR. SHANK: Yes, the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Now the problem that we have is here. We have some property owners here from your community who do not have the benefit of seeing this because we don't have enough copies. So, in order to allow them some access, I think we'll take a three minute recess and let them look at it. MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't change the lot coverage figures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but they don't have a copy of it in case they want to discuss it amongst themselves and it's not really fair to them. It's only three minutes because we have to get going here, we have a lengthy agenda. So, we'll take a short recess and we'll show these gentlemen and ladies. OK, MR. Arm. MR. ARM: Actually, I'd like to also clarify one thing in relation to the lot coverage. The lot coverage which I used .27 acres which is what the Assessor's office had as well as Mr. Shank's deed, what that had which is, in contradiction to what the Building Department has said 5,000 landward of the water. So, which basically if you' go by the 5,000 my calculations would be wrong. If you go by the .27 which is what is on the record with the town, then my .calculations are accurate, but I also would like to add that they are plus or minus numbers just based on this. 'CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let's go over those calculations so that we have what I construed to be at least on the record and then we will discuss if we consider them valid or not. We have the .27 that you just mentioned. We have 914 sq. ft. for the house existing decks ( ) 684, existing storage shed 70, existing porch and steps 44, existing lot coverage of 1682, 14.34%, plus the addition, 62 sq. ft., proposed deck addition 443 sq. ft., proposed stairs 42 sq. ft., removal of storage steps 70 sq. ft. and remo~/al of front porch steps at 14. OK, total lot coverage with improvements 2115, 18.03%. Now where are we going from that particular juncture? MR. ARM: From that point, with some of the stairs actually being removed with a handicap ramp added, the total numbers will actually be fairly close to what we have. I did deduct in the existing stairs, I know we're allowed 30 sq. ft. for the stairs forward which, ~Page 52 - Hearing x ranscripts .April 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals so I deducted that from the totals calculated from the lot coverage as well as the stairs on the western side hopes to raise the parking . areas as well. We're hoping .we won't need as many steps down to grade, but, that's still pending. How high up we can actually go that will also affect that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, let's assume that we discussed the possibility that we exceed the lot coverage by the fact that the deed not necessarily is .27 acres. Do we have an existing survey of the property? This is the 76 survey, right? Same elevation shown March 29, 1995, so they must of done something with that juncture. Can I keep this Craig? MR. ARM: No, it's mine. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's one in the file already. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know there's one, it's just easier for me to get it from you, I'll give it back to you. MR. ARM: OK, sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: go into the Boards. What else did you want to say before we MR. ARM: Really just the fact that the practical difficulties that exists and certainly if had the house been surrounded by different conditions then we didn't have to go up as high with the house as we do, certainly possibly the handicap ramp and the steps wouldn't of been necessary, in which case I don't think there would of been any problem in trying to negotiate for something less. Just the way everything is and the amount of time it takes to get up that high and since we can't put anything on the ground the side decks are also needed just for protection of at least just to maintain what's there and that's really about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The elevation is proscribed at 6 feet, is that correct? What is the actual elevation of the building now? What is that above meet? MR. ARM: feet 4? The new elevation of the floor would be approximately 9 MR. SHANK: It's probably going to be a, the way, the blocks aren't done yet. But, the way it's done right now, it's going to be 9 foot 4 from the top of the footing. I think there's going to be 13 eourses of 8" block. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: moment. Ms. Collins is telling me 10 right at the MS. COLLINS: It says 10 on your drawing. New floor elevation. Page 53 - Hearing x'ranscripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SHANK: 10, oh 10 feet. MR. ARM: The finish elevation.. MC. COLLINS: Oh, that would be the finish elevation. MR. ARM: The finish elevation would be approximately 10 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's to the lowest floor. To the timber of the lowest floor I assume. MR. ARM: Actually that would be to the probably finish floor level. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Finish floor on the first, alright. And, the other aspect that I just wanted to touch on one second was, we have no indication of what actual upland area we have here, do we? MEMBER TORTORA: ( ) that's 5,000 sq. ft. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They include the land under water with that. MEMBER TORTORA: It says 5,000 sq. ft. along the bulk ordinary high water mark. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK, so maybe they didn't. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well that's an approximation. I think the Building Inspector did go there. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that doesn't seem to be on any survey. MEMBER TORTORA: It's pretty close to wharfs on that survey. I did rough calculations and I came out with the same figures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Shank when you bought this property~ was this the only survey that you had, or did you do another survey on this property? MR. SHANK: As far as I know, that's the only one I had. Carlin Vay Tuyl might of updated it when we refinanced. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you check with him please and find out if he has another survey that was done other than this. MR. SHANK: Something more recent? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 76, yes. MR. ARM: More recent than that. I think the only indication was that it had been updated and re-guaranteed so much later that the survey still hasn't changed. Page 54 - Hearing franscripts .A~pril ]~6, 1998 - Beard of Appeals MR. SHANK: That is it because Gary Fish from the Building Department had asked for a new survey and then said he would hold until we finished. He came down to the site, and said, alright go ahead and let us use that survey. So, that was the only survey, but, since then we did have another survey or he gave us a bench mark on the telephone poll of a 9th foot elevation and that survey will be completed when the job is finished. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are they putting bloek under this as we speak? Is this being done now? MR. SHANK: The town issued an emergency permit because the, when they gave me the permit to raise, there was a problem with the footing being 12 inches below grade and with the two most recent storms again, the temporary criving was washing out and scrolling away. So, we put bales of hay and whatever else we had to do to stop it and then they said alright, go ahead raise it, and we started. We put the footing in and started the block to where it's somewhat safe but still the rain falls inside under the house and there wasn't another one blocked out. So, we're trying to get - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high is the block now? MR. SHANK: There's 8 courses of block today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And they're still working on it? MR. SHANK: They are. They're doing even more than what is called for. They're filling in the cells, they're putting in re-bond to make it even stronger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Homing. Alright, I guess we'll start with Mr. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could I just ask you to hold off for just a moment. I'll give you calculations of the Building Inspector. They usually give you calculations. I don't know if you looked at it. Usually they give a calculation with that on the disapproval. I'm surprised it's not here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I think the problem is the fact that we have an older survey and I think that everybody is just estimating what the actual wetland square footage is. Craig, your percentage is based upon total lot area, right? MR. ARM: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Of the deeded area with land underwater included? MR. ARM: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Alright, and that's 11,730 sq. ft.? Page 55 - Hearing ~'ranseripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ARM: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't understand. Alright, so what is the question?, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question that has been asked during the break was, do we calculate land underwater or do we calculate land above? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just want to mention, that I know the Building Department does include land underwater if it's deeded. They've done that in the past. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything other than subdivision. MR. SHANK: I'm almost positive it's deeded because I ( ) was but Rudy Bruer was my attorney, and when 'we went to the closing, he was the one that informed me then that, "Bob this is your land", under the water and he explained to me that, nobody could claim that, or anchor there, or do anything, but, they had access, crossing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, like a right-of-way. MR. SHANK: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mr. Homing, questions? MEMBER HORNING: I'd like to clarify terms of the deck, decking. What is existing right now? You say that on the north Side that it's not there any longer? MR. ARM: As far as right now because the house is being raised for them to get the equipment in, in order to raise the house. A lot of the existing deck has been basically all of the existing deck has been removed so that you could get the equipment in so that they could jack the house up. MEMBER HORNING: All of it, not just on the north side? MR. ARM: No, they had to remove all Of it. underneath it. They had to go MEMBER HORNING: Alright, so that you're saying right now, there's nothing left of what's shown on the site plan as existing deck? MR. ARM: Correct. MEMBER HORNING: Now when that deck was there, I noticed that particularly on the north side the high water mark goes. towards the house beyond the deck. Was the deck underwater during the high tide? Page 56 - Hearing ,'ranscripts ,A~pril 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SHANK: I have .pictures of the deck. The whole house was flooded twice. I lost four cars down there. Yes, it floods constantly. That was the idea. I have no intentions of raising this house. I'm going to retire here. OK, and that's my intent. I'm a lifelong Long Island resident. My wife worked at North Fork Bank. My daughter graduated from Mattituck-Cutchogue High School and I had no intentions of doing this, since I got flooded these many times. MEMBER HORNING: Well, the deck particularly on the north side that you say the water flowed over, was that built on grade?, or was that built up from the grade? MR. SHANK: Up, it was actually up from grade. MEMBER HORNING: And yet the high tide came up above that? MR. SHANK: Many times. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You gave me the impression Mr. Homing, that when you were at this house prior to Mr. & Mrs. Shank owning it, that it was almost even with water, with normal high water, alright, and I you know, so I mean that that was the impression I got when I was at the house. MEMBER HORNING: So there is then flooding problems there for years, years, years and years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would assume you could say that. MR. SHANK: This is how it's being washed out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Would you pass those down. MR. SHANK: This was the deck that was there. That's the deck that was there. That's gone now, only for construction. (speaking amongst themselves) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: here, on this? Alright, so where are we going from MR. ARM: Actually from here, we actually have Trustees' approval to construct the new deck. Without pending your decision will be that we asked them to get in touch with the DEC, we do have the current permit obviously ( ) this being done now and pending what we can do. In addition we'll also be contacting them and based on that we'd like to proceed if we could. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just need some confirmation from the Building Department that - MEMBER TORTORA: I think we have it Jerry, if you just let me talk a little. In reading through this, I was confused by the two figures that had been presented. Yours would indicate that you were under 20% lot coverage based on inclusion of the underwater Page 57 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A~pril !6, 1998 - Board of Appeals land and the Building Department's estimate of 5,000 feet, that was suppose to go up, because using the Building Department's estimate, your existing structures at 36% lot coverage and you're proposing 9.1.15 would bring you to 42% lot coverage. In reviewing it, I looked back and found that in 1988 this Board 'granted numerous variances on this property included lot coverage. If I said, how. did you get this 36% to begin with? How did you get to be less than adequate setbacks from the bulkhead side yard to center, and in this decision in 1988 it says the subject premises conveyed to Anthony ( ), December 5, 1986, by deed having the total area of approximately 5,000 sq. ft., and it goes on to say that the application in 1988 was for permission to exceed lot coverage. So, I don't think that there's any question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think there's a total question. The question is, and I will clearly state it again, that if this is the survey we're going with, then have the surveyor who I know is no longer with us on this earth, but have his son calculate how much square footage is in here. Exactly the same situation that existed in 1988 with the same situation that the Building Inspector is relying on now. We still don't know what the upland square footage is. MEMBER TORTORA: But, you based your decision on 88 on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but on that, it was on a deck. This is a total reconstruction of the house and that's what I'm saying. I'm just asking him to back to Conlin and ask him to reconfirm that we're talking 5,000, we're talking 5,000, we're talking 4,000, we're talking 9,000. What are we talking about here? That very simply was the same situation that you're seeing today, based upon the same survey that was drawn in 1977, and please I'm not being - MEMBER TORTORA: No, it's not going - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ( front of you. ) by handing this and sticking it in MEMBER TORTORA: That's true Jerry, but, the bottom line is, they exceed lot coverage and by a great deal. Now, whether it's by 42%, or 32%, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but, I mean we can't prolong a thing. I mean we have to know what the norm is. When we know what the norm is, we can then proceed from that norm. Certainly itts not going to stop your construction at this particular juncture. You're going to continue to do the best you can to shore up the building. We are fortunately going into better weather and just have them do that. We'll get you back on the 14th and then we will know exactly what we have and where we're going at that point. Ms. Collins? Page 58 - Hearing i'ranscripts .A~pril 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: A couple of questions. I just want to make sure I'm reading this properly. The new things as distinguished as from raising the house and raising the deck. So things that are new, are the handicap ramp, the small addition to the house allowing for a stairwell in the future than a new front door, I guess, and then filling in a deck all around the I guess you call it the southeastern corner of the property where there has not been one, is that right? And that's actually where the bulk of the additional square footage comes from according to your ( ). It's more than 400 sq. ft. So, from the point of view of what you're seeking in terms of lot coverage, leaving aside for the moment what the denominator is, and just talking about the numerator, the big item you've got here really, is putting in this additional deck around the southeastern corner of the house, adding 400 odd sq. ft. of coverage. Am I yeading that right, OK. MR. SHANK: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I would just like to say, since we've been hassling over this question of what the denominator is, that since our Zoning Code is very clear, that you can't count underwater land when determining whether you have a big enough tot to build, that I would definitely not count underwater land when determining whether you're covering too much or too little. That's Section 239. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: when you're creating a lot. That's usually for subdivisions MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no, no. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: past has been. I'm just letting you know what the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need you to answer that also ( ). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: From the Building Inspector too. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not what you acted on in 1988. In 1988 you acted on and granted variances on the upland area only and I don't see how we can be inconsistent - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can be inconsistent because waterfront changes' on a daily basis. That's how you can be inconsistent. In 1976 to 1988, is not a great deal of time. However, 1976 to 1998 is a great deal of time. The difference between a deck in 1988 and the difference between a total reconstruction here, which is not before us I grant you, but, all the decks and all the improvements on this property is a substantial improvement, alright. We just want to get it right. I think it would make sense to get it right. That's what we're saying. Am I correct in making - MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, we want the right numbers. No question about it, but, I know how I read the law. And I think they got, I Page 59 - Hearing ~'ranseripts .A. pril 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals mean the bottom line is, they got an area variance for lot coverage in 1988 and they're not asking for much more now, but, they're asking for some more and we certainly want to know what the numbers really are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: I concur with you Jerry. This had to resurveyed. This can't-be. This possibly can't be the same lot we were looking at back then, 10 year ago. And, I've also have to say, concerning this application, you know, Jerry keeps slipping and you know it's going to be, you know, totally rebuild and it is. I mean this is just the first step, I'm assuming in a fate contemplating on improving this house to the point where you're going to have a two story structure, 10 feet above sea level. I mean am I correct? And, I can also say, -(you don't have to answer that questions, you just have to think about it) also, that this structure as I look at it, will not support a second story. I don't believe that as it looks right now,. unless you demolish this thing and rebuild it, I don't believe that you can add a second story to this. I mean I think we really in essence looking at a whole you know, of building a brand new house here. You know, me, complying with some you know certainly the intent or the ( ) you know, probably a good thing to do, but, you know, you're definitely are increasing things. We need to get the lot coverage problem. There's no doubt about that and you know, then we can have something at least to work with, that we know we have something concrete. That's all I ask. MR. SHANK: Yes, I would just like to assure you that I'm not playing a show game with this. I have no real intention right now of putting a second story on, even though that we did draft plans to do it. I backed off from it and Craig has just gone for a first story right now. There may be a second story one day, and we have thought about doing it larger, but, the cost was so great we decided to bag it and that's exactly what happened. We had asked for more lot coverage on this side originally from the Trustees to 8 feet. They came out on several occasions and said you can have the 5 feet only because the existing stuff was here and with that Steve (changing of tape) MEMBER DINIZIO: (Beginning of new tape incomplete. Starts as follows:) What I'm just saying he's ready now. Is that you're in, right now, the process of building a two story house, because number 1, you could not do it on the foundation that you have existing now. It could not happen. So, we're going approve a foundation that will handle such a story. What I'm saying, looking at this house as it exists right now, I don't believe you could put a second story on that structure. MR. ARM: As far as, I mean, I was letting the existing foundation and everything that was there previous, I would definitely agree with you. In relation to once the new foundation was in, and if anything ever did want to be, if anything was going to be added Page 60 - Hearing '£ranscripts ~A, pril 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals later, it's actually common that you'd stripped the roof system off and you're actually ( ) different joints that are built with grading just clear span from side to side that bear right down on the existing foundation. So no we wouldn't use the existing ceiling structure which is correct. But, I mean, there are various ways you can do it. MEMBER DINIZIO: So I mean you are making some provisions for a stairwell, those kind of things that indicate that you know, your intentions. Even if you don't do it, I mean the next neighbor could do +~hat. MR. ARM. The original intent, originally we were planning on doing something. I said, not that, it might never happen, certainly that's not for me to decide, but, in a sense if you're doing something for a little expense more, actually do it right even if it's your house you want something that's solid and suitable to handle more than even its capabilities with a minimum dollar increase it's always a wise investment anyway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so basically we don't care if you use the existing survey or the new survey. But, we need it in writing what you have there and of course it would be, I'll use the phrase, the greatest, if you could give us an existing new survey without you know, that would be delightful, alright, that's the word I was looking for was utopia. But, we understand that that may not be a possibility in the next two to three weeks, or three weeks or so. But, we have to have these calculations and we also have to know if we are determining it without a planned area or with a planned area. If you want to get that from the Building Department we would appreciate it from them on that basis. But, we need a norm that we're going to start with so we know where we're going at this juncture. MR. ARM: In reference to the Building Department they've calculated based on the upland area. I'd be more than happy to do it once we have the new calculations of the upland area exact to calculate it both ways, but the one ( ) dimension is versus also what the upland area once we find out and to make your decision from there. MEMBER TORTORA: It just has to be verified. MR. ARM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We thank you very much gentlemen. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We're going to try and move this along since we'll be back on May 14th. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against or ask questions on this? Mr. Homan how are you? MR. HOMAN: Fine, how are you? Page 61 - Hearing ,'ranscripts ,A, pril 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fine, thank you. Jerry this is not in favor or against the application or even .discussing the merits or lack of merits on the application that's before you. But, it is concerning one thing about Fisherman's Beach. Fisherman's Beach is a small bay for a small option. It has two big things. One is a big view and the other is a big road. And, it is the integrity of the road, that I am concerned with in any action that this Board may take on any property of Fisherman's Beach. I'm the caretaker of the road, of choice, whatever, I plow it, remember when we use to have snow? I grade it and so on and so forth. But, be that as it may, this is not the first time this question of the road has come before the Board. It came before in 1976 also, in a case of Mr. Johnson and a lot of the questions that you people have tonight regarding this area, the water line, land on the border, so on and so forth, you might find those Minutes very very interesting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you talking about Mr. Johnson, all the way at the end? You're talking about the house, the Johnson house, all the way at the end, the third house? Three house, OK. MR. HOMAN: But anyhow, getting back, what my concern is the road and maintaining the integrity of this road and I don't know, I've seen what supposedly is the site plan, but maybe I'm more use to business site plan where you have to mark out the parking area and so on and so forth. But, I'm concern about any effective that any decision that you might do or the Board, would effect the rest of the people on Fisherman's Beach in regard to their ( ) on the shape of the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. you? Yes? Dr. Samuels, how are MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Fisherman's Beach, Cutchogue and I'd like to say that Bob Shank is a friend of mine and I hope he'll remain a friend of mine for as long as he lives in Cutchogue. We've known each other a long time. He lived across the road from me for I guess at least 4 or 5 years. We've been through many floods together. At the time he was considering buying the property we talked a great length about it. It had been on the market for a great many years at a very low elevation. It flooded repeatedly, it was truly what they call, what the farmers call, the summer camp, bungalow.' Many couples lived in that house for many years, for two months of the year. It's beautiful, it's a houseboat.' Now, it's being raised to a flood plain elevation and I commend Bob for doing that. He really had a, we get flooded, he's been flooded every winter. My home, ( ) rarely and Jimmy's parents, not quite as often. It's a very fragile lot. Indeed one of the things that surprised me tonight was the applicant's representative stating that he was going to go to the DEC to get permission to expand the parking lot 2 feet seaward to the creek. I don't believe that permit will be available because what he has is high marsh and low marsh and I don't believe the DEC will let him build that stonewall 2 feet closer to the marsh and I get permits all the time and I get denied all the time. The point being that Bob bought the house with my Page 62 - Hearing l'ranscripts ,A. pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals knowledge, and the knowledge that I imparted to him having lived there since 1959, of its problems and they existed and I frankly didn't believe anybody could live there year round, but, he proved me wrong. But, he caught hell doing it. Now~ ~it's going to be raised and that's fine. Above the flood plain level it won't flood. That end of the road will continue to flood. Every north east that hits the end of that road. There's considerable erosion and the end property, the Campo property which was the Johnson house, considerable controversy about the Trustee road, about the, with the Trustees about the road then, the conditions of the Trustees to Mr. Johnson were never completely fulfilled. The private road goes right to the end of the creek but you can't get through. Nobody complains, about it, we all live together I think very nicely and which is what bothers me so much in having to come here tonight to say to you, that there should be no additional lot coverage on this lot. It is what it is, what it is. We can't do more. It shouldn't be a two story house. I don't know if it's going to fit in a pyramid law anyway because we're plus 10 mean sea level right now first floor elevation. I don't know what the pyramid law is on R 40 or ~-whatever the designation is maybe you do. In closing, I think Bob knew what he was getting. I knew what he was getting and itts just unfortunate, but, you just can't do what you want to do on a lot that size in a fragile area. It's totally out of character with the area. And I probably go by it by boat every day during the summer twice a day, at least twice and we waive and I hope he'll continue to waive at me. But, the fact of the matter is, that it's a tiny piece of property, most of which is marsh, has a bulkhead which is gone and needs replacing in time and not too long in time. The tie rods and anchor piles are now underneath the concrete foundation that he's putting in to raise a house and so there's going to be some exotic helicoid type anchor piles probably necessary to hold the bulkhead. Well short of the shear line of the bulkhead. Now he's going to raise it and we talked about it a couple of weeks ago about how he could raise it inexpensively and it can be done and he will do it and it should be done. The Trustees did give him the right to raise the land around the house 3 feet high I understand. However, the parking area I think he's got to go to the DEC and he's going to hsve a considerable amount of trouble with that. So, in closing I regret in having to come tonight and I have never been before this Board before where I've spoken against anybody. I always speak for somebody. I am a as you know a property right's advocate. But, there just comes a line when you can't build a big house on a small lot and I think in time that's what's going to happen here and it's going to be a problem for the neighbors. The other problem is one that I think has to addressed and I think that is the road. Jimmy Homan does maintain with my tractor. There is a problem on the road because it's narrow and people have encroached on the road for years. I'm encroached one put on the road, one of my neighbors across the street is encroached on the road, some 13, 14 feet, so, I can't argue about encroachment. It's like a tot of private roads around. In days gone by, back in 59 you put up a hedge and that was the edge of the road. Those days are gone forever and the problem down the end of the road is, if anybody is Page 63 - Hearing .~ranscripts ,A, pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals parking parallel to the road at the end of the road, you will not get your rescue truck through, you will not get the Fire Department's smallest pumper through. Joe O? as the garbage man might get through, but, not much more. As it narrows down, it's a problem. So, I think it's just asking too much to do to this piece of property and I regret having to come here and speaking about it because I like Bob, I know his wife, she's a lovely lady, I know- his grandchildren and his daughters. But, I just feel that the site is inadequate for what is intended. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: moving on. Thank you. Yes, quickly and we're MR. SHANK: I just like to say that the house will not have second stories on it, it is not the intent to do that now-. The intent is so that I can have a handicap ramp. I have a severe and permanent disability where I am on the edge of being hospitalized. I was again in December I was off from work for four weeks again. I lose approximate 7% of my lung capacity for a disease known as Asbestosis. This is something that I need. This is not something that is decorative, it is not a swimming pool, the encroachment on the road is a necessity that I am asking for only, a necessity, 3 feet. It's very difficult for me to walk distance. It's very difficult for me to walk up stairs. Tom Samuels and I walk and we'll always be friends and I appreciate his point of view. But, I am not asking for something that I think is unreasonable. It is something that if you take a close look at this, there's is no other way to do this and I stand before you with honesty and tell you this is not a prerequisite to do a second story on this home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we're going to recess this hearing until May 14th and please let us know on May 14th if you are unable to get us those calculations and you know, we'll further go with a recess. I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until May 14th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 6~ - Hearing ,ranscripts ,A, pril 1.6, 1998 - Board of Appeals 9:27 P.M. - ApPl. No. 4561 - MATTITUCK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Location of Property: 12605 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-141-4-32.1. Zone District: HB Hamlet Business. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 13, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit application for an addition to existing church, for the following reasons: "...Under Article XXIV, Section 100-243, a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use ~cannot be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered. Note: the nonconforming use pertains to the HB Zone where churches are not permitted; the nonconforming building pertains to the existing front yard setback to Rt. 25 which is less than the required 15 feet..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated 3/13/98 indicating an addition of approximately 32 x 34, 34 feet 8 inches, which is actually pushing the church out farther toward Sound Avenue and farther away from the Main Road, Rt. 25 and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Ms. Herald, how are you tonight? MR. HEROLD: Fine thank you. Diane Herold, 884 West Hampton Beach. I am the architect for this project and I'd just like to describe a little bit of what we're doing. The church came to me, they'd like to increase their space and we've come up with which we think is a pretty unique solution to keep the esthetics of the church which is greatly considered in this project because it is so visible from Mattituck. We're going to slice the north part of the church off, keeping the steeple and moving it 32 feet north so that the steeple will remain on the north side of the church and then we're going to in-fill between the steeple which has been moved and the existing building. We're also putting a cellar underneath the new part of the church. I have been to the Planning Board. I went in January. They informed me that they felt kindly toward this. We have a letter that is dated March 17th. I believe we received it March 18th from Mr. Pastor to the Zoning Board Appeals saying that they are inclined to grant this but we have a few problems. Basically the church is a nonconforming use in the Hamlet Business District. I've spoken to Councilman Moore and he has indicated that the Town Board is seeking to add churches to the Hamlet Business use, that he advised me to come to this Board because it could be a long process and the church does not feel that it wants to wait. Therefore, we would like to resolve the nonconforming use with this Board. When the Building Inspector inspected the survey, he indicated that there are two parts of the existing church that are too close to the road. He asked me to address that also when we come here and a Member of the Congregation would like to tell you about the history of the church and what we propose to do with the spaces. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rose, how are you tonight? Page 65 - Hearing l~ranscripts ~A~pril 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ROSE: Good Jerry. My name is John Rose and I'm a Member of the Presbyterian Church in Mattituck. Just to give you a little bit of background, the church was originally built on that site in 1715. It burned twice and the last rebuilt was 1875 which is the existing building right now. We've had a problem for a number of years with classroom space for Sunday School on Sunday mornings. At presently we are occupying the North Fork Playhouse. We use that on Sunday mornings for classroom space and also have used Brisotti's office as classroom space, which is not the handiest in inclement weather. So, this is one of the reasons why we want to take and expand the church for a growing congregation as well as increased classroom downstairs for Sunday School classrooms. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Would that be for upstairs classrooms as well? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No the church is upstairs. MR. ROSE: Everything is downstairs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're actually increasing the size of the church for the congregation also. MS. HEROLD: It would be the sanctuary ( ). MEMBER TORTORA: The bottom part would be for classrooms? MR. ROSE: Classrooms, yes. MS. HERALD: I did go to the Planning Board today just to check because we had submitted for landmarks and for the Architectural Review Board. The Architectural Review Board has given us approval with the stipulation that the outside materials remain the same and that no trees will be cut down. I do have elevations of the church as it will be visible from the street if the Board would like to look at that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is going to be a complete continuity with the existing church that your not going to be dropping any roof or anything of that nature? The continuity of the roof line that exists now, is going to be - MS. HERALD: Yes, that's why I'm submitting this to you because I don't think that anybody will notice that the church looks any different after we've done it. Basically the steeple will be where it's suppose to be. We're adding two matching, well four matching windows, 2 on the street side that will match what we have there now. So, basically instead of seeing the number of windows you see now, you'll see two more. Everything is being matched as far as materials, as far as trim, painting it the same color. We are putting a new roof on the church so the church will look consistent, there won't be a mismatched roof. Page 66 - Hearing 'l'ranscripts ,A. priI ~[6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the question. Is there any reason why you chose to go this way instead of going let's say to the west and putting a tee off of the church. I understand that this is an extremely historical building and I don't want to get your blood pressure turned up here in any way, but, I mean this is rather, I mean really quite a feat that's going to be done here because the steeple is how high John? I mean I've climbed it in the Fire Department to do a fire inspection and I got to tell you I mean - MR. ROSE: It,s up there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's up there. MR. ROSE: One of the reasons Jerry, is that there are graves just to the west of the church that really can't be disturbed and the church doesn't own the property. It's the Cemetery Association that owns that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, right, yes. MR. ROSE: So, basically the only way we have to go is north. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I didn't think it's a great idea, don't get me wrong, I just wondered why. I mean it's got to be an extremely costly idea. MS. HERALD: Well, it also makes the sanctuary make sense, otherwise you have people around the corner. So this way everybody has a straight line and if you have any questions about the moving we have a gentleman here who is going to move it. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the set back is, because you started to talk about that before, there's not going to be any decrease in that, is there? MS. HERALD: We are in total conformance with the new section as far as setbacks from both Sound Avenue and Rt. 25. It's just the two little corners that is towards the southside that are existing. The Building Inspector just asked me to bring it up in case there was any question. MEMBER TORTORA: changed at all? That's already existing, that's not going to be MS. HERALD: You have to realize that the church is almost a victim of circumstances because roads and towns do grow up around church as a center. MEMBER TORTORA: From 17507 MS. HERALD: So basically we're looking at something that was there before anybody started doing anything else. MEMBER TORTORA: I think so. Page 67 - Hearing ~'ranscripts ,A, pri! 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who is actually going to move the steeple? MS. HERALD: here if you - It's going to be Davis Brothers. I have Erny Davis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, that's why I asked the question. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We thank you very much. We think it's going to be a major feat. But, we applaud you for doing it. MS. HERALD: I just have one request. I know that you have a very busy ealendar, but if you could make a decision fairly quickly I could get on with the Planning Board meeting for this month, otherwise I have to wait until the middle of May. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the date? Do you know? MS. HERALD: Mr. Kassner may I ask you what the date is? MR, KASSNER: Monday, the 2?th. MS. HERALD: Monday, the 27th. MEMBER TORTORA: Nothing like having the Planning Board here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tonight. Mr. Kassner happens to be an applicant MS. HERALD: It will be the 27th. I'm not forcing it. but, if there's any way possible you would make it along those. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We may be able to give you a straw vote tonight. Maybe not a permanent decision at that point. MS. HERALD: I understand, OK, that would be great, I appreeiate it. ~hank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions from any of the Board Members regarding this application of Mr. Davis who is going to do this major feat move or of these applicants? MEMBER HORNING: I have one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Herald? Alright, who are you going to ask it to? MEMBER HORNING: The applicants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Herald, I guess we need you back. MEMBER HORNING: Looking at the survey map, I see a dotted line here, says cemetery area the one ( ) graves being at the west side of the church. There's a big open space in here between the Page 68 - Hearing 'l'ranscripts ,A~pril !6, 1998 - Board of Appeals church and a 1-1/2 story framed building. area? What exactly is in this MS. HERALD: That's all cemetery. MEMBER HORNING: It is cemetery. what this dotted line shows. So this area extends beyond MS. HERALD: Oh, yes, definitely, yes. cemetery. That whole area is MEMBER HORNING: And where do people park? MS. HERALD: They park in a public park across Sound Avenue. There's a Municipal Parking lot there. They park along the street, they have a few spaces that they can use at Handi Pantry, but, basically it would be across Sound Avenue. I did give the Planning Board a calculation, if you're interested I can - MEMBER TORTORA: have thai. We saw that note from the Planning Board, we CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George, this is one of the only roads in Town that's one way. One way down. There's no way out. MEMBER HORNING: I just noticed that there was no on site parking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One way west. MS. HERALD: We have several handicap spots on the property. There's a driveway that goes around the church and that does include about 3 or 4 handicap spots. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes, certainly ma'am how are you tonight? Would you just state your name for the record. MS. NAPIER:. My name is Catherine Napier and .I'm a Jr. Warden at the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer and I just like to read a very brief letter that in support of their appeal. The Church of the Redeemer and Episcopal Church in the Village of Mattituck a neighbor to Mattituck Presbyterian Church wishes to support Mattituck Presbyterian Church's application for a variance in zoning so that the expansion of their facilities can proceed. The Vestry, Wardens and I feel that an exception in this case would allow her growth and Christian teachings and its positive moral influence our members to our community. We encourage the Board to find in favor of the application for variance and this is signed by J. P. Edwards who is our Priest and Vicar. Page 59 - Hearing '£ranscripts ~A, pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Anybody else would like to speak in favor? I'm hoping there's no-one that's going to speak against. I think at this particular time, I'm not trying to put the Board on the hot seat, but, is there anybody on this Board that is oppose to this application? MEMBER COLLINS: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER COLLINS: I'm not oppose to it at all. I think it makes a lot of sense. But, I'd just like to go on record on a line that I have, horse I have flogged before. That the way our Code is written, in fact, the Code says that because it's a nonconforming use, they really can't do it, and it's not clear to me exactly what we're doing when we give them the variance and I think the Code has got to be attacked because if there were opposition to this, I think we would be in a difficult pickle. MEMBER TORTORA: I think there are some legal options here with, there's a class, I'm not going to get into this, but, there is a class of called a "Special Accommodations" and schools and churches are among them. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, that's true enough for churches but, we have recently seen a carpentry shop that was in the same situation. I just wanted to get it out that I think the Code needs serious attention. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think based upon that, Diane, you may not have a written decision until, excuse me for calling you by your first name, but, I think based upon that, you know, we can go forward. We may not have a permanent decision until about April 30th, but, we'll, we definitely are going to ask the Town Attorney to assist us in writing the decision. MS. HERALD: I really appreciate the Board's efforts on our behalf because we do want to move forward. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 70 - Hearing 'transcripts ,A. pril 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals APRIL 16, 19987 ZBA PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 9:42 P.M. - Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN ROSEN, Contraet Vendee (Owner: O. Booker & ano.). Location of Property: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-141-3-44. This is a request for Variances based upon the Building Inspeetor's February 18, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit application to construct a tower for telecommunications use, for the following reasons: 1) the proposed telecommunications tower being located on a nonconforming lot in an LI District is not permitted aeeording to Section 100-165B; 2) the proposed tower being the principal use on the lot is required to have a rear yard setback of 70 feet pursuant to Art. XIV, 100-142; 3) the proposed tower is required to be located at least one-hundred (100) feet from the nearest dwelling unit pursuant to Artiele XVI, Section 100-162C.3...' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey dated, April 11, 1997, updated March 3, 1998, and indicating the existing two story, or, 1-1/2 story framed house. They're calling it a two story, basically fallen framed shed in the rear and the placement of the proposed antenna. And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Cuddy, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. CUDDY: Fine, thank you. I'm Charles Cuddy, I represent the applicant Martin Rosen. I would like although we have some things in the record, to give you in sort of bulk, the affidavit of mailing -I'm sorry, the affidavit of posting, I've already given you the affidavit of mailing. I have a Memorandum of Law that I'm submitting. I have a copy, just one unfortunately of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I'll give that to you, but I'll take it back momentarily. I also have a memorandum from the Building Department - from Edward Forrester dated March 11th, and I have a letter that I wrote to the Building Department on March 23rd, and also the Town Attorney which I have never gotten a response. I~ll get to that later. I also have a copy of the elevations that we proposed to renovate the building, the site, and I have three pictures showing both the east side, the west side and the rear of the building~ and I'd like to put that in as one exhibit instead of going back and forth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Exhibit submitted to Chairman). Surely. Linda, do you want to mark this. (Exhibit marked by board secretary). OK. We're ready. MR. CUDDY: The Memorandum serves the Petition, I think there's enough for everybody and so are the letters, the elevations of the pictures unfortunately are not. I would also like to eomment at least I assume as part of your record, that I had forwarded to you the consents from the owners, dated February 27th, and dated March 16th, we forwarded to you, a revised survey, a copy of Mr. Rosen's FCC License, and also a copy of the tower design. And then, on April 9th, which was just delivered I believe in the last day, we forwarded to you some additional information, a letter of Page 71 - Hearing Transcripts .A~pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals consent from Long Island Railroad, a letter regarding the FCC frequency and also a single and separate search. So I ask that all those things be made a part of the record. This is, I think you know by this time, is a small lot in the Industrial area, the Light Industrial Area, on the south side of Sound Avenue approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Sound Avenue and the Long Island Railroad, 250 feet west. The site right now is including a house that is to say moderately in disrepair, and a garage shed that is really dilapidated. It is at that site Mr. Rosen proposes to erect a radio tower 85 feet in height and also to have an office building by renovating the existing site. The office building will be approximately 600 sq. ft. The problem that we're confronted with from the Building Department initially is that at this site the tower is 85 feet and we're only 87 feet from the nearest dwelling where we've located the tower. It's our intention to place the tower as far away as we can get it from the buildings. To do that, we had to place it of course right next to the railroad. The railroad has consented to us doing this. But we ask the Board to look at the code very closely because the Code at 100-162-C-3, talks about a 100 foot requirement - but we believe that 100 foot requirement is simply a safety factor. We don't have 100 foot tower. We're not 100 feet away. We have an 85 foot tower and we're 87 feet back. And we think, and we ask for an h~terpretation that that meets the requirements of the Code. In the alternative, ff that was not satisfactory to the Board, we also ask for a variance. A variance is somewhat minimal because we're 87 feet back, the requirement would be 100 feet. And we think that certainly under these circumstances, and we will have a design engineer testify later, that everything would be safe; there would not be a problem for those people that are a distance from the tower. Perhaps more importantly though, the concern thai the Town has indicated at least through the Building Department initially it was that we don't meet the Bulk Schedule. We believe we meet the Bulk Schedule, and of course when I say this, I'm speaking specifically of Section 100-165. The Bulk Schedule that's referred to is referred to specifically as per the Bulk Schedule for the Industrial areas. The Bulk Schedule for the Industrial areas includes the nonconforming section for the Bulk Schedule. There's no exclusion of that. It says it very specifically. It does not say one acre; it does not say two acre. When the Town Code was authored by whomever wrote this section, they said there should be five-acre residential lots for Telecommunication Towers. Here, when we get to the Light Industrial Area, they do not say that at all. They say simply 'per the Bulk Schedule.' And, I believe very strongly that that simply means you go to the Bulk Schedule and the Bulk Schedule says you can have nonconforming lots. And from that, I get to the question of how far back do we have to set back on the rear yard of the tower? And I believe that we again use the Page 72 - Hearing Transcripts ~A~pril ],6, 1998 - Board of Appeals nonconforming section. We use 35 feet - not 70 feet. It's not a conforming question; it's a nonconforming question and I think the Town really has not addressed that. I think the Building Inspector who initially agreed with that in0terpretation for some reason left that interpretation. But I point out to you that Mr. Forrester on March llth of this year wrote a letter saying that this is a permitted us - to 'define it as a permitted use, he had to indicate and had to accept the fact that it was a nonconforming lot and the nonconforming lot was acceptable at law. I believe it is. So for those reasons we're asking under the Telecommunications provision that you accept this application and approve it. But I have to go much further than that. I'm sorry to take the time here, but it's very significant to my client because a year ago innocently and asked what he should do to put up a Radio Tower. He operates a trucking business. His Radio Tower is not a Cellular Tower, it's a Radio Tower. He went to the Building Department, the Building Department said to him, you can have a Radio Tower, you can have it on a nonconforming lot~ and you can have it in the Industrial Zone, if you have an office it's an accessory use. But, you can't do that now because we're going to have a moratorium on towers. And so he stopped and he waited, and I waited because I was making the application. When the Telecommunications Provision was passed, Local Law 26 in November of last year, we read it, we were told that that encompassed our application, and we made the application. After that was done, I obtained a copy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If you will look at my Memorandum, I point out to you that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Radio Tower application by a private individual. That Act is exclusively, and I say exclusively, dealing with Public Utilities and people that make money from Cellular Towers. It does not deal with Mr. Rosen. And because it doesn't deal with Mr. Rosen, I'm asking the Board to make an interpretation that this is an office use, under Section 141-6 which is Light Industrial. He has an office; he has a building that he's going to house equipment in, and he's going to have an accessory use which is what he first came to the town and asked to do. I think it was a mistake to direct him to the Wireless Communications Facilities Division. It took us a while to find out what the law was. I don't know if anybody frankly read the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's long; it's wordy; I've read it from front to back. It does not cover this application. If you go into the Town Law, which was passed Town Code 1996, November, we go through the Definition seetions~ it's impossible to conclude that his facility is covered by the Town Code. I've outlined it so I'm not to reiterate it or bore everybody with it, but I think that's specifically set forth why that doesn't cover this particular application. And so what our application to you is, is to have this Board determine that a Radio Tower is an accessory to all office use and to grant us essentially, a variance, a setback variance, based upon the fact that the nearest effected neighbor is not affected adversely, and they have consented, and that's the Long Island Railroad. Page 73 - Hearing franscripts .A~pril 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals We're back approximately two feet from the ( ) line. I believe, that the 35 foot rule governs, so that's a substantial variance, but it does not impact any other neighbor. It certainly is the .best location for it, and economically this whole application, both the renovation of the building, plus the tower is not going to be an economic detriment for that area. I have several witnesses that I would like to testify, and the first one is Mr. Stark, whose a design engineer and can talk to you about the design of the tower. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to swear you in when you get up, Mr. Stark. Thank you. Raising your right hand, do you solemnly swear the information you're about to give us, is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. STARK, under Oath: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. MR'. STARK: Good evening Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Members of the Board. My name is Harvey Stark. I am the President and Chief Engineer of Harvey Stark P.E., P.C., Consulting Engineers. I am, of course, a licensed Professional Engineer. I have a Master's Degree in Structural Engineering. My experiences include the design and supervision of construction of high elevated facilities including towers, silos for asphalt companies, silos and conveyors for concrete companies, and I have been asked by the applicant to review the structural design plan for the proposed tower. Thai proposed tower is manufactured and supplied by the Rohn Company of Illinois. It's a very well-known company and has an excellent record of structural towers as high as 320 feet. This proposed tower is specified in information provided by the manufacturer to show an 85 foot high tower with a breakaway base of 40 feet, meaning that under extreme high veloeity, unusual weather conditions, if in fact the tower would not withstand extreme high winds, greater than 100 to 120 miles per hour, there could be a possibility of a breakaway at the 40 foot level, and that would insure that the portion of the tower which would breakaway would only be 45 feet in length and would not come anything closer than approximately 40 feet to the adjacent structures and the existing structure on the property, and I can assure you that these conditions would not provide any potentially hazardous or dangerous condition with regard to possible failure and if, and~ when on the adjacent structures. Basically, the lower 40 foot section is an extremely large size diameter tower members and they're of course adequately anchored to a substantial base strueture, and the breakaway connection at the 40 foot level is designed to in fact break at that point rather than having the strength to uplift and topple the lower 40 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: hour? Why is it only rated for 100-125 miles an MR. STARK: That's a design limitation. Page 74 - Hearing ~l~ranscripts ..A~pril 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can that be beefed up? MR. STARK: Well, it's designed with a factor of safety. I believe it's a factor of safety between something like between 2 to 4, probably a factor safety of 3. So, in the world of design, you can adjust the design of the members based on the anticipated factor of safety against overturning or failure. In this case, if the superimposed forces by 120 mile an hour wind would reduce the factor of safety of overturning from 4 to 3, or 4 to 2, and still have substantial resistance against overturning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask you thai question, one of the retiring members of the Board, who had just retired last October, was on the Board for 42 plus years, and he's from Fishers Island, he claims that the '38 hurricane, the wind velocity in Fishers Island, was 193 miles an hour, and that's what caused the other devastation that occurred. Fortunately and I'll knock on wood, I am not a superstitious man, however, that we have sustained winds on the North Fork in excess of 125 through the hurricanes that I've seen in the fifties (changing of tape). CHAIRMAN continued: Not being the professional that you are, I use the (pledge?) faetor and say, we have never granted an antenna, for either wind generating possibilities, anything that we've been asked to the, for a minimum, I would say at 150 miles an hour and that's why I'm just asking that question. Because that seems to be the norm. We are an island, and, as you well know, you live on the same portion of this island, but some bit west. I'm just telling you that we do sustain greater wind velocity. I realize that there is a tree coverage within this specific area of this proposed antenna. But, we do sustain some really maximum winds in a hurricane. MR. STARK: A couple of things, if I may. I've been to the property several times. There is a dense, wooded area surrounding the property which wouldn't be hardly several feet less than what the entire height of the antenna would be. The normal design load for prevailing winds in this area, which includes the east end and the west end of Long Island, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, if you go into the hand books and general design manuals, uses a design factor of 120 miles per hour. In this case, the designer - and I just went over my notes and the design prior to this evening - indicates 100 to 120 range miles to ]00 to 120 miles per hour range. But included in that is a factor of safety. I have to look it up again, but I believe it's either a factor safety of three or factor safety of four. And those are the tools of the design engineer to either design for a super-imposed wind load of 150 in which case they might just design for a factor safety 2. So, they work hand in glove with regard to the design load and the factor of safety. But, I just wanted to again if I may, assure to you that this tower is structurally sound and would not in any way provide hazard or potential danger to the surrounding community or the surrounding neighbors. Page 75 - Hearing i~ranscripts ~pril 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're only testifying to the structural integrity of the tower itself, is that correct? MR. STARK: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: gentleman? Thank you. Any questions of this MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. The factor of safety is really what you rely on as far as wind speed is concerned, when you're designing the tower, in that you stated that between ]00 and 120 miles an hour - that would be if you require a factor safety of 4, let's say or whatever - whatever was required. But, if you built that same tower and wanted a factor safety of two, you could say that that tower was designed for 150 or 160 miles an hour - I'm assuming that's how you're explaining that? MR. STARK: That's exactly the fact. But in preparation of calcula- tions to design the tower, you must state what the loading is, the large load, which would be the wind load, the dead load, which is the weight of the tower, and in preparing the design calculations, you would indicate what load you're designing for, and of course when you get to the critical portions of the design calculations, you then introduce what your factor of safety as a designer is, and those two work hand in hand to come up with the structurally sound facility. MEMBER DINIZIO: So you can come to us, with that same exact tower, and tell us that it's designed for 150 miles per hour. Is that correct, could you do that? MR. STARK: I would certify to you that that tower would sustain the superimposed forces resulting from 150 miles per hour wind. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, that's basically what we're talking about? MR. STARK: Yes, sir. MEMBER TORTORA: This is an open lattice tower of metal, open 85 foot high, open lattice? MR. STARK: Yes. The tower, I thought - (interrupted). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have it. MR. STARK: It's a three legged tower as compared to a four legged structural and it's a tapered shape with diagonal braces within the 20 foot sections. The tower, the height of the sections are constant at 20 feet per section vertically. The approximate spread center to center of the three tower legs is 8 foot 8 inches, center to center of those legs, and the recommended base sizing is, approaches 20 feet by 20 feet as far as a footprint of the base support slab. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you very much~ Sir. Page 76 - Hearing transcripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CUDDY: I'm going to ask Mr. Mel Ocean, who is Professor of N.Y. Institute of Technology to discuss with you the uses and the effects, and other things of this particular tower. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, the same thing, Sir. Do you solemnly swear the information about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. OCEAN, sworn in: Yes, Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And state your name, please. MEL OCEAN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. My name as stated is Mel Ocean and I am President and owner of a Communications Corporation and have actually dealt with Mr. Rosen for these many years and in fact have sold him his existing equipment which he operates. As unnecessarily, I am an advocate for his petition and also as stated, I also am a Professor of Telecommunications at N.Y. Institute of Technology and at present am teaching there. The need for this particular tower is obvious. The purpose is get Mr. Rosen's antenna up in the air. The height of the antenna is what effectively makes the amount of distance he can communi- cate. And, basically he's interested in communicating with his trucks, which ply their trade on the North and South Forks of delivering furniture and appliances for a variety of reasons. Being in business, he has to keep in touch with them. They get lost - they need addresses and that sought of thing and because of this, there is a trucking association which oversees all the trucking companies in the nation and find their need grants them frequencies to use as set aside by the FCC. And, this was done many years ago and he of course has this frequency which you know of in this petition and happens to be at approximately 159 megahertz, which just to understand is approxi- mately the same frequencies at which you operate the marine band radios to give you an idea of what's going on. It is his intention, and, of course, it is also the law which he cannot exceed, he is allowed to use a 100 watt radio. This is about the size of a telephone book for his operation. To be truthful, by the time the energy gets up to the antenna, which is up in the air, the energy is really reduced to about 50 waits. On your boat, if you were on your boat, if you operate a boat, or a visitor, the typical Marine Radio, which has probably the antenna standing right next to it, he's operating at 25 watts. To give you an idea of the quantity of energy that this antenna is going to produce, OK. In terms of environmental impact, that is health hazards, from all records, from all observations, it must be said that it is negligible. It just simply is unknown for anyone to suffer any ill effects from radiation of this type in this particular tower. Along these lines, you know, I'm available to you, and you know even though I am an advocate for his position, to answer any of your Page 77 - Hearing transcripts ~A~pril ],6, 1998 - Board of Appeals questions of course in all due honesty and sincerity. Again I know your concern, you know, through the impact of this structure, and what are we doing. One other fact of interest. Basically, his duty cycle in using this equipment is such that he actually is on only during the working hours, during the day, five days a week and it amounts to really only a total of a few minutes an hour. So his use really is fairly minimal. That's an average. He can have a bad hour. He can get on with a truck that's lost and be on there for a while. But, on the average. In fact, this is so much use to him that if a truck is stolen from his radio system, he can make the truck inoperable, stop it dead. We've installed that for him. Even a radio signal can put out the truck which of course he has actually used in the past. What can I, you know, answer you about this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How does this relate to the Cellular Telephone Tower in reference to its - ? MR. OCEAN: It doesn't. This is what you call a special mobile radio license designed for business people. It has nothing to do with cellular communications. Cellular communications takes place at frequencies up to 800 and 900 megahertz and the little portables that you're familiar, and is an entirely different phenomenon, different type of radiation which Mr. Rosen is proposing to use here. MEMBER TORTORA: You said this is special mobile services? MR. OCEAN: Yes, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Commercial mobile services, correct? MR. OCEAN: Yes, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Commercial mobile services are included and are covenant in the Telecommunications Act which I have in front of me. Page 101, Definitions, for the purpose of this paragraph. Number I -i, 'the term personal wire and services means, commercial mobile services. ' MR. OCEAN: There's a suttle difference. MEMBER TORTORA: The act itself covers many, many different types of things. Not just telephones, but many, a whole host of things. I'm sure you know, Mr. Cuddy. But and there was some discussion of exemptions for amateur radio operators and the FCC did issue a very limited exemption of them, as you know. But, if you're saying that he is a commercial mobile services, then you have commercial by definition it's included in the definitions of the Telecommunications Act. MR. OCEAN: No, the Commercial Mobile Radio Service the FCC is referring to is a business such as Bell Atlantic to be able to sell individuals radio time on their systems to use their equipment. This Page 78 - Hearing x'ranscripts ~A, pril 1.6, 1998 - Beard of Appeals is entirely different. Mr. Rosen has been assigned his own frequency to use in his own trucking business. He doesn't relate to anybody else. Just his own employees which is a use different from a commercial cellular radio operation that's doing what we know they're doing, to consist a totally different thing. Also, the particular Act of 96 did not in anyway change the rules and regulations regarding business people like Mr. Rosen, and/or other services such as to hire people and the police and taxi people to enable them to get frequencies so they can conduct their business unhindered. The reason why that is policed is because we can't compete with 200 trucking companies on the same frequency. He has his own. The next company that uses his frequency is out somewhere in New Jersey. They organize it like that. MEMBER TORTORA: From a layman's point of view, in other words, he doesn't have a tower now. So how is he communicating? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He has a tower. MR. OCEAN: He has a tower. He has a tower right now. MEMBER TORTORA: words I didn't - This is another tower he wants? In other MR. STARK: I'm limited to how far I can go. MR. OCEAN: Alright, let me explain. I wasn't aware. He has a present tower doing exactly what he wants to do here in Oceanside in Nassau County. His problem is, when the trucks come out to his neck of the woods he loses them because his tower is only so high. So what he proposes to do really is enable himself to put up another tower here, so in order to cover this area of population using the same frequency that he has been assigned to. That's the problem. If he can't work the North and South Forks, and his business is expandingat this standard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does this transmission go from tower to tower and then from truck to tower, or tower to truck? How does the transmission work as opposed to a cellular phone? MR. OCEAN: As opposed to a cellular phone? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As to a cellular tower. MR. OCEAN: Oh, cellular tower. Cellular tower basically, when you operate your cellular phone, wherever you might be, the cellular phone sends out a signal which is called registering the phone so that phone company knows exactly where you are at all times. When you transmit from your little portable, you broadcast it directly to the tower. The tower then takes your signal and transmits it to the telephone company central office, which then in turn sends it along to the traditional telephone lines to bring you up high and the reverse thing happens you know, when somebody in the office wants to call you in your case, from the telephone lines, the tower and to Page 79 - Hearing x'ranscripts .A~pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals you. What he does, he sits in his office with his microphone and when he gets on the air, his antenna speaks and all his trucks out there hear him and he may say, "Truck 4, where are you?" Truck 4 answers. It works in essence in the same way as any taxi radio system that you've been into. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So in other words, what you're saying is that he is actually, when he speaks, he has to notify the truck that he wants because the radio is indicating 'on' on all the trucks. MR. OCEAN: Right, right, right. He calls a specific truck, all the trucks are on a party line for that particular frequency, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, so he's notifying every radio that's on in every truck that's on the road, that's under his FCC license? MR. OCEAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Basically his own trucks? MR. OCEAN: Yes, that's how it works. works, that's how it still works. That's how it traditionally CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it is similar to a taxi service? MR. OCEAN: Yes, exactly. If you wanted to make analogy, it's just like a taxi service except, he doesn't have to do taxis, he only has to do trucks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, alright. MR. STARK: Taxis are not allowed on there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Question? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I was just going to say that perhaps an analogy that we all recognize is like our Marine Radios. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: hears the message. I mean that's anyone listening on the frequency MR. OCEAN: same thing. It works the same way. You're absolutely right, the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Any questions? Yes George. MEMBER HORNING: For Mr. Rosen, if you would. The testimony introduced so far states, that the proposed tower would be used for your commercial trucking operations, is that correct? MR. ROSEN: That's right. Page 80 - Hearing 'l'ranscripts ~A~pril !6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: space on this tower commercial? Are you entertaining any thought of leasing for some other operations by some other MR. ROSEN: The answer is absolutely not. But one would have to be a dummy not to hear what's going on. But I am not installing this tower for anybody else but me, for my operation. MEMBER HORNING: And you're telling us then, that you would never lease space on this tower for other purposes to someone else? MR. ROSEN: Will I ever lease space? MEMBER HORNING: That's what I'm asking. MR. ROSEN: I can't answer that honestly, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let me just clear this subject up. When I met with Mr. Rosen, he graciously offered the Town space on the tower, free of charge, all right, at which point, I called at both his attorney and himself, Mr. Raynor from the Police Department, and told him that this gentleman's is offering space, but would have to know prior to installation of the tower for the wind resistance aspects of loading. At this juncture, I have said, I had nothing to do with it, I'm only relating a question to Mr. Raynor, and then I gave Mr. Raynor, Mr. Cuddy's telephone number and that was the extent of the conversation that existed. Is that correct Sir? MR. ROSEN: way too. That's exactly per verbatim. I'm glad you said it that MEMBER HORNING: Thank you Sir. MR. CUDDY: Mr. Rosen, while you're up, why don't you explain what your trucking business is. MR. ROSEN: Sure. As Mr. Ocean explained to you, he did a pretty good job. I guess the best way to compare it like you said, would be with marine radios. I propose to take this dilapidated building, cut about 80, 70 feet of it off and get 'rid of it. Renovate the balance which is going to be approximately 21 x 27, I think you said it was. It's going to cost me a great bundle of money. It's not going to be a truck depot like you may be thinking° I have requested to have one or two truck parking spaces there. And it's not that the trucks are going to sit there, day in and day out, that's not the case. They can be run coming out from New York. I may very well may have them do their deliveries, leave the truck there, get a motel for the night or something. I don't know. But don't visualize a whole bunch of trucks parked. Am I going to have an office there, yes. I'm going to have a room for the radio equipment, lines going to my tower, yes. That's basically all that's going to be. And, I really don't know what else to tell you. ~t's not really an elaborate situation. I operate strictly Page 81 - Hearing-l~ranscripts ,A~pril 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals Cu~oe Vans. There are no tractor trailers, no straight jobs of 19, or 20, 24 foot trucks. They are strictly cube vans. Are you familiar with Cube Vans? MEMBER HORNING: Explain those for us, if you will. MR. ROSEN: You know what a Econoline is? (Someone answered a USP truck). MR. ROSEN: No. USP truek is too big. MEMBER HORNIGN: What's the size of it? MR. ROSEN: 14 foot Box Van. It's got a Econoline, Econoline front end and a 14 foot box. They're not big trucks, no tractor trailers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I compare that, Mr. Rosen, to our present ambulances that we use out here. MR. ROSEN: here, yes. situation. Yes, I would too. Thank you. I've seen them out That's a cube van but in a much more elaborate CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions of Mr. Rosen while he's up there? Anybody? No, thank you Sir. MR. CUDDY: I appreciate your taking so much time. The last person is, Tom Eulinger, who is a member of Celic Realty, and I want him to testify about the economic consequences building of some of ~[he surroundings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to point out that as you know, Mr. Cuddy, I hold a broker's license which I have held since 1975 and it is presently held by Mr. Robert Celic, who is the owner of Celic Realtors, Celic Realty, pardon me. I do not use this license in any way; I do not sell real estate. The purpose of the license is for another job which I have other than this job. I just very simply want ~to mention the fact, that I do hold a Real Estate Broker's License. It is incumbent upon me and the State of New York to indicate where I register that license as an Associate Broker. I do know Mr. Eulinger. I have no business dealings with this particular aspect of this business and this application that's before us. I just want to go on record indicating this. Good evening, Sir, how are you? MR. EULINGER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. My name is Tom Eulinger. I live in Cutchogue and I am a Licensed Real Estate Broker, associated with Coldwell Bankers Celtic Realty. I have been asked to give my opinion of the proposed project as it relates to the real estate market. Presently the subject is the site and house are in a state of disrepair and abandoned basically. There's rubbish strewn all over the lot. From a real estate stand point, the improvements that are being proposed by Mr. Rosen, as Page 82 - Hearing x'ranseripts ~A~pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals shown in the site plan, will have a positive impact on the contiguous and surrounding property values. When a potential buyer sees that money is being projected into an area, it makes the sale a lot easier and likelihood a lot better and faster. The renovation to the building, landscaping and garden work that he's going to perform will become an asset to the site in the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any questions of this gentleman? Ladies and gentlemen? (No members had questions). Just for the point of record, I just want to point out that the reason why the two gentlemen were sworn in because I don't know them. It is up to my discretion to make that determination. I certainly know Mr. Cuddy; I know his credentials. I indicated to you that I know Mr. Eulinger and I know his credentials. Over the period of the time that Mr. Rosen has come before us, I had met with him on the site. There was no reason to swear him in. He is presenting his own case. Thank you. Mr. Cuddy, anything else? MR. CUDDY: No, that's our case. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEi~: leaves the dais? Any questions of Mr. Cuddy before he MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I'm trying to think exactly how to phrase it. Mr. Cuddy, because you brought your Memo of Law tonight, I flipped through it, but clearly I wanted to listen to the witnesses and not focus on it. Do I understand from what you said that you're taking the position in the Memo of Law that Mr. Rosen's project does not fall under what is called Article 16 of our Zoning Code, the one that was enacted last fall regarding, what's it called? Wireless Communications Facilities or whatever. MR. CUDDY: Local Law 26. MEMBER COLLINS: codified now. Yes, .well you called it Local Law 26. But, it's MR. CUDDY: Wireless Communication Law. Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: It's in our Code and MR. CUDDY: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I think that your fundamental position is that this project, that that part of our Local Law is irrelevant for this project because this is not a Wireless Communications facility as defined either in our Local Law or in the Federal Telecommunications Act and therefore I think you're saying, instead look at what this is. It's an accessory use to an office on an admittedly nonconforming lot with some setback problems and that's why you need a variance for. Have I stated your case essentially? MR. CUDDY: That's correct although I did present the alterna{ives - Page 83 - Hearing ~'ranscripts ~A~pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, So, then - MR. CUDDY: But yes, that's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Then, in your memo have you then stated the alternative? You said, but if we feel that it does belong under as a wireless communications facility 'that you're making the arguments why, why it works. MR. CUDDY: Yes, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to get that clear while everyone was here and you were on the record because, I mean, I'll just say, that I agree entirely with your position. When I read the record, I said, what is all this stuff about Wireless Telecommunications because I think that this is like a taxi company's aerial or even a hand radio aerial, although this is for profit. MR. CUDDY: You stated my position better than I did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. something. And before you sit down, I have MEMBER COLLINS: Yes I just wanted to make sure that we gave Mr. Cuddy a chance to get that into our verbal record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One issue that is of great concern is the issue of multiple uses on this piece of property based upon the substandard size. We are anticipating the use of an antenna, the use of some sought of housing facility, to house which I know is multiple because you're considering the use of the office, which Mr. Rosen had stated and then of course the parking of a truck. You mentioned also the Bulk Schedule and as it pertains to this particular site. I understand the possibility of the parking of the truck because it could be the parking of a car which requires you to get to the site and to leave the site. However, the is sue of multiple uses is an issue that we're discussing here, and I don't specifically understand when you say that that's ( ) does not pertain to this particular undersize piece of property in the Light Industrial Area. MR. CUDDY: I think what I was saying was that the use that we propose is a use in the Light Industrial District, which is an office use. In that office use, yes, are we going to park the car? I would park the car in the office or a truck. Yes. We're not talking about multiple trucks, we're not talking about having a trucking facility operate. This is an interim place. The base for the trucks is for the west, when they would be in this area where they would stop and check the facility. It's my impression and I think the Building Department's impression when you're tied down to a point, that you can have an office use and'you can also have a tower as accessory to that office use. And that's what we're proposing. I don't visualize it as multiple uses. It's one use regarding one owner and .it has facets to it and those facets include Page 84 - Hearing franscripts ~A~pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals coming to the office sort of speak, parking there is having that tower that addresses or assists the trucking of that. It's all part of one operation. So, I reviewed it, and I believe, that if pressed the Building Department would acknowledge that they understand that type of use is with towers as an accessory. So, I don't see it as a multiple use. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Cuddy, you wrote to the Building Department a month ago, March 23rd, outlining this position. I gather you have not, that was not answered? MR. CUDDY: response. I got no response. I called them and I still got no MEMBER COLLINS: flippantly. They're very busy, and I don't mean that CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (Changed tape.) MR. FOHRKOLB: Andrew Fohrkolb, 11650 Sound Avenue, Mattituck. One question is, does this project require an aerial photo? CHAIRMAN: For what reason? MR. FOHKOLB: visual impact? For site plan. For community - just for impact, MR. CHAIRMAN: I have never requested that to be honest with you. MEMBER TORTORA: Some applicants have submitted aerial photos to show proximity to it. Bell Atlantic did. MR. FORKOHLB: I have three sworn affidavits from neighboring property owners that I would like to give to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this site? Where is your location in proximity to MR. FOHRKOLB: Directly across the street. It's a vacant lot. Mrs. Funn lives directly next door to the east. She has a residential house, one family house. Directly to the west is Mrs. Simmons. She also has a single family house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. FOHRKOLB: Right now I have signatures which I've gotten in the past 48 hours. I've prepared this only while I've sat here in the past hour or so. But, I do have signature from over 50 residents of the town, opposing the tower which I can log to you also. I know that, I have some urgent questions and suggestions Page 85 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A~pril !6, 1998 - Board of APpeals for the Board. One is, does this project comply in an area to build on? MR. FOHRKOLB: Has everybody from the Board been down to see the site? OK. I have a major concern with the safety of the town and being so close to the other residences. My not being one of them, but, I speak for Mrs. Funn and Mrs. Simmons. As Mr. Ocean had said, not Mr. Ocean but Mr. Stark, with the wind and the breakaway, all that stuff is great. I mean, what he had said, we can get that right from Rohn. All of the specifications on that tower so we don't really need all his testimony concerning that. That can be gotten right from Rohn. I think what he may have not mentioned is, usually.' on a tower, you have antenna off the top of it. And, if you're dealing with VHF, VHF usually has an antenna that's about 22 foot long. Usually an antenna is, now, on top of the tower which would bring that tower up to about 107 foot. That's a consideration I think the Board should have. I don't know where that antenna placement is going to be. But it's definitely is something that has to be looked into. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I have that again? understand what you were saying. I didn't Mil. FORHKOLB: Well you have a tower that sits 85 foot tall from the base to the top. The tower does not transmit. The antenna transmits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. FORHKOLB: Where is the antenna placed on that tower? Usually at the top of the tower. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. FORHKOLB: So, that adds a height distance to that whole structure. So when you're figuring out this distance to the neighboring houses, et cetera, that placement of the antenna has to be factored in there, I'm saying. Another thing, too, with wind loads, resistances, and all of that stuff, putting more antennas on that tower is also a factor. The size of the antenna, the weight of the tower itself, all of these are factors involving, you know, how this antenna would fall, et cetera. Another thing, too, this tower is going to be approximately 8 feet off the property line. Now, the tower may fall, ok? It may not hit the house, but what about the dog that's in the yard, or children are playing, or somebody that's out in the yard, has anybody ever thought about that? Or is it just everybody is in the house at all times? Mr. Ocean stated that the purpose of Mr. Rosen's intention is to get his antenna in the air. To me it looks like he's spending a lot of money to get this thing going. Has he ever thought about leasing space on another antenna that's somewhere else? I don't know what his project is, his projected costs about this, for his whole project? I think that should be addressed. Page 86 - Hearing ~'ranscripts ~A~pril ]~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals Another thing that wasn't addressed is, how the actual transmission will take place. We know that when he uses his microphone, we broadcast to all the trucks. What is his effective range area' on VHF? He has one transmitter in Oceanside I presume. Now what is the range distance for that? Does he have any other towers on Long Island? What will be the effective range of this tower? I know from my experience with VHF, it's about 30 to 40 miles. Now I don't think his tower is going to transmit out to Montauk. I think he's going to have a lapse of coverage. Figuring this sensibly, he'd be better off with a location maybe in Calverton, or maybe one in Brentwood, maybe one in Southampton, all equal distance. It doesn't add up. It's not making sense. Another thing too. How is he actually link the transmitter together? What is the size of the equipment? Does he need 600 sq. ft. to house this equipment? Another thing, he's going to have an office. Does he have Health Department approvals for a well and a cesspool? Is he going to have running water? Can you be in an office without running water, or is it just an accessory building? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want me to answer that question? MR. FOHRKOLB: No, I'm just presenting these things for you to consider. When Mr. Euhlinger talked about the economic impact, he said, that when Mr. Rosen fixes up the house, it's going to have economic impact to the area. He never mentioned the tower. What if I put a tower up? I mean, of course, you'll say, nobody wants a tower in their backyard. But I guarantee you, if you put a tower up in my backyard 85 foot tall, the person that comes to look at my house to buy it, is going to look next door and see that tower and say I don't want this house. Also, I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's a proposed historic structure that is less than 100 feet from the base of the tower. It's the old potato barn across from Penny Lumber. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jerry Schulman's place. MR. FOHRKOLB: Yes, Jerry Schulman's place. Has anybody really considered that? I mean, you know, this is, all of Mattituck Village is a historic area, and we have no towers there now and I don't think the tower is appropriate. Furthermore, I'm not satisfied with Mr. Rosen's answer in leasing space out. As far as I'm concerned, anybody that spends this amount of money on a project like this, has a motive to do more than what he says he's going to do. Another thing too, he gets, he puts this tower up, who's going to regulate what antenna he puts on that tower? It's not going to be you - it's not going to be me. As soon as that tower goes up, he'll put any antenna he wants on that tower. Again, I just want to finish in closing that we do oppose the tower. I will provide you with copies of all the 50 residents that I've just gotten within the past 48 hours. I'm sure there's a lot more people. There's been more of these petitions going around. I know of one other one that's gotten over 350 signatures, and I think there's a double count. Page 87 - Hearing x'ranscripts ~A~pril ]~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just wondering if you had written down all these questions, because it's going to take a little while for us to reduce this to writing, and we certainly would want to answer ali your questions, or at least not us 'in particular, but we would want to have - MR. FOHRKOLB: Well, Jerry, whatever I've written down here, I wrote down in the past hour. I mean scribbled on paper. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we will have to wait until the - MR. FOHRKOLB: I can provide some questions for you, but my whole point is this application is not to be taken lightly. The tower as far as I'm concerned is discriminatory in its location and it's going to open up a can of worms for everything else down the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you, Mr. Fohrkolb. Anybody else like to speak against? Alright, we have one more. MRS. FUNN: I want to say I live right next door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: right ? You're the lady in the green house, MRS. FUNN: The yellow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ma'am? Yellow, I apologize. And your name is MR. FUNN: Alice Funn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'F-u-n-n. Thank you ma'am. Yes ma'am? MRS. SIMMONS: I live next door in the green house, not next door, in the green house and this is so foreign to me. My family has lived in Mattituck for so many years before I came to New York. The Funns and the Stovealls, the Fords - they are very well known. I have a lovely home there. My husband built 22 years ago. I'm a widow now. My family lives next door to me. I'm a grandmother and a great-grandmother. My little grands, they come and they play in the yard. We will not feel safe any more. It's like taking our home away from us. And I want to say to those of you, who know and understand, if this was to happen to some of you in your home, how would you feel? If you had a beautiful home and you loved it, and you love going out, sweet Long Island is God's country, we love it and we're good citizens here, in our church and in our community, and we are well known. We cherish our home. But, we're not going to feel safe if this is done and I just hope that you will see it, the way that we see it. Don't take our beautiful home away from us and let something stand and that is so ugly that we cannot even go into our backyard and appreciate our family and our kids. Thank you so much. Page 88 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A~pr,ii 1,6, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can I have your name please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you Mrs. Simmons? MRS. SIMMONS: I~m Mrs. Simmons. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: back to Mr. Cuddy? Thank you. Anybody else before we go MR. CUDDY: First that I'd like to say that we understand completely the sentiment that was just voiced. I do want to point something to those people that voiced them and to this Board. That is, that the Town when it passed the Law that we were first talking about tonight indicated that towers should go in the Industrial District, that's not something that we decided. We're going to where we can go pursuant to the Law, and we were directed to that District. We were directed to that District prior in time to the passage of that Act by the Building Department, and that's how Mr. Rosen came there. He did not select that site by going by and saying, I would like to find the site that I could put up a tower that no one is going to notice it. He found it because he was told to go to the Industrial District. That is the area where the towers will be. And, the Town has confirmed that by the passage of that. So, I understand your problem with no one and I can say that probably uniformly is interested in having a tower, but if towers exis-~ and we do in our society, we have made an. election and the Town Board has made it for all of us and misfortune it may be, living in that area cannot be helped and I understand that, but that's where the towers are going to be. So I can understand the sentiments. I think also the Law has told us that that's where you go. I also think and I just want to answer a few of the questions that were made. As you know, this application would go before a Planning Board. It is before the Planning Board. We have to get site plan approval. We have to get Health Department approval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to get SEQRA approval. MR. CUDDY: And we have to get SEQRA approval, true. And, all of those things will happen. So when people ask questions like that, I don't think they have inquired sufficiently and that's going to happen. We're going to screen the property. The Tower Law, although we may not be under it, requires that you d° certain things with the towers. You have to actually screen the tower. It may have to be a certain color. So the town has considered this tower and the Town has indicated how it should prevail. I think that all of the questions already asked and some of them were good and some of them perhaps not so good, but all of them can be answered, we'd be happy to answer them, because I think there's a rational good explanation for each one of the questions that were raised. If you'd like it done tonight, we can do it, we can do it at anytime. It's the Board's pleasure. I just don't want to - Page 89 - Hearing i,2anscripts April 16, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to reduce this to writing and then we have to submit it to you and then we have to reconvene and in the interim, the Planning Board in its wisdom will be dealing with the SEQRA aspects and - MEMBER TORTORA: Did you, I don't have - I have your Memorandum of Law. Do you have any other submissions as far as why you feel you are not under the Telecommunications Act? Is there anything else that was left - for the local - MR. CUDDY: I think all I can do is say to you, if 'you read the Memorandum and you look at the Telecommunications Act and you look at the Town Code, it's hard to conclude that we do fit into it with the type of facility that we have. I can't just imagine thai we do. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not as sure as Ms. Collins and I would like to have, you know, any information supporting your position. MR. CUDDY: All I can do is suggest that it's a hardship to do- is to look at that Act and read it along with the Town Code, I think it's inescapable that this application does not come under that code. I don't know how else to get there. I've spent three hours reading that and it was probably the most MEMBER TORTORA: It's grueling. I've been through it. MR. CUDDY: Yes, difficult reading. I've been through it. MEMBER TORTORA: there are - We'll go back through it again, but I think MR. CUDDY: So that's how I got there. there's no summaries (). No, I don't have any - MEMBER TORTORA: If you didn't, let's do a hypothetical scenario. If you didn't because you don't comply with the Teleeommunieations, under the new Local Law, you don't comply with the lot coverage, you don't comply with setbacks to the nearest residence and you don't comply with the rear yard. You're one foot off the rear yard property line. So that's three on that one. Now, supposing that let's go to the another scenario, that you are a permitted use and the tower is accessory, wouldn't you still need variances? MR. CUDDY: Yes. I said that we need certainly a setback variance for the location of the tower. MEMBER TORTORA: And the height? MR. CUDDY: No, the height has no exception. Or it does have an exception. You see the height is not limited by the Town Code. If you go to the supplementary regulations, the height, the supplementary regulations indicates that a radio tower can be any height, which is somewhat remarkable, but that's what it says. It Page 90 - Hearing l'ranscripts ~A~pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals could be probably 200 feet, or 85 feet. Department disagrees with this.. I don't think the Building MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Guyton would like to speak. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bill, just stand up there one second. I just have to remember my train of thought here. There is a new Act of which you may be required, ok, it's under the Preservation Act, because of your proximity to the Schulman property and the Planning Board is dealing with that aspect right now and interestingly enough this gentleman that's standing at the podium is the one that had just queried us about it. So that is something I would ask you to cheek with the Planning Board with because they are dealing with the SEQRA on this. MR. CUDDY: Pardon me. Are you talking about a historic building? CHA~rRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. CUDDY: Something that's been declared a historic building or proposed to be a historic? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we have not gotten to that point, Mr. Cuddy. The reason being that some of the particular buildings, (I'm not speaking for you Mr. Guyton), but some of the buildings were placed within the realm of being historic. But they were never necessarily put in the registry itself. However, that doesn't preclude them from making, from you making this particular application before the State Preservation Commission. MR. CUDDY: Well I think that there's an inventory of all sorts, but none of them to my knowledge, and I've checked as best I can, local, state or national historic, calendars, registers, or anything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Town Historian disagrees with that because she said that the Inventory that was made, that was registered with the State, my mind escapes me at ten minutes to eleven exactly what that Inventory is, but I can tell you that she does not necessarily agree with that. I'm not speaking for her. As you know, we have another application before us almost within the site of this particular piece of property. In fact, when Mr. Rosen and I met at the property, he asked me where the other site was, and we could get a pretty good eye sight down the railroad tracks to that site. But I'm just mentioning that to you, that that may be something apart from the Long Island Railroad, one that you're dealing with. That's what I wanted to say. Pardon me, Mr. Guyton. How are you tonight? MR. GUYTON: Fine, yourself. My name is Bill Guyton and I live in Mattituck and I guess he's told you who I am anyway. I just. want to say about three things. First thing, the Town of Southold, depends on all of you and all of the Boards that we have, to maintain our sanity in this Town. But, you are not the whole Town of Southold, and what you've heard tonight, I think expresses the Page 91 - Hearing ~'ranscripts ~A~pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals idea that the Town of Southold community as itself, doesn't need any tower in this Town. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir'. We thank everybody for coming in and for speaking and we thank you for your courtesy. I would suggest to the Board that we recess this to the June hearing date. Would you happen to know what date that is, Linda? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's the llth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We believe the llth of hopefully we will have gotten to that particular point. that a motion, ladies and gentlemen. June, and I'm making BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It'll be a Thursday night. Mention that Jerry so we'll get the right night. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thursday night, June llth. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: that? -Alright, is anyone going to second MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 92 - Hearing f ranscripts ~A~pril 17, 1998 - Board of Appeals 10:55 P.M. - Appl. No. 4562 - ROBERT KASSNER Location of Property: 145 Teepee Trail, Southold; 1000-87-2-32. This is a request for a Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 17, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit application for a 10' x 16' shed for the following reason: proposed accessory shed being located on a nonconforming lot in an R40 Zone is required to be located in the rear yard, Art. lllA, Section 100-30A.4 further referred to Art. III, 100-33..." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey from Peconic Surveyors dated May 22, 1986, indicating a 1-1/2 story framed house, penciled in, Holly Wigwam Way, approximately 38 feet and 5 feet off the property line. It is the applicant's request of a placement of a shed of 10 x 16. Mr. Kassner would you like to come before us and tell us why you want it in that location? We have read your application, we are aware of why you want to put it there and we are so sorry to keep you up to this point. MR. KASSNER: I'm Bob Kassner, I'm the applicant. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, as you can see by my diagram, my house is set back a great distance from the front yard. I have two front yards, technically the second front which is 40 feet on Wigwam Way, which is a turn to the end of my property. It's really not a front yard, in that it's wooded and so forth. The reason why I selected that location, if you look at the diagram, the wood line runs from the no~th very narrowly f~om my property line to the west, it gets wider as it goes south. My neighbor to the north, is Tony Lewandowaski, has waterview to the rear of my property. If I had located the shed in the small rear yard that I have because I have two front yards, it would stick out into my lawn area and block the view. I have spoken to him and I suggested that we put it into the wooded area that is greater depth on the south side of my property, 38 feet in from that f~ont yard, it would then be totally enclosed in the wood and meet the minimum standard of 5 feet from the rear yard, 38 feet from the front yard. I consulted with my neighbor to the south who has the view of my shed, which you have picture of, and he had no objection to it. In fact, I think he wrote you a letter to that effect. I had not heard from my neighbor to the east which is the vacant lot behind me, which is a very important one because it's 5 feet from his yard. He appeared yesterday in the office of the Town Hall, I guess he was visiting probably the Zoning Board. Zoning must of directed him down there. Did he visit you? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: out to lunch when he came. I don't know. I may have been MR. KASSNER: Well in any event, he showed up. I shook hands. I hadn't seen him in 20 years and he visited for a little bit and he said he had absolutely no objection. So, all five of my neighbors that are either across the street or contiguous to my property, have no objection to this site. In fact, they had selected it to the best Page 93 - Hearing Cranscripts ~A~pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals available site because it's hidden in the woods and it gives my neighbors some more waterview. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where does Mr. Lewandowski live? MR. KASSNER: He lives directly to my north. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the lot that goes from Arrow to Tepee? MR. KASSNER: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. KASSNER: His house is right in the middle. has some waterview from the back of my yard. selected that location. So therefore, he So that's why I CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I just want to say one thing. In ali due respect. We cannot deal with the waterview aspects of anything. I mean I'm sure you're aware of that. It does make sense to me however to put it in that tree line, because it does shield ito There's no question about it. The utility in the shed, any electricity? MR. KASSNER: No, it's a prefab. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One story shed. MR. KASSNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: feet, something like that? Alright. Approximate height is what, 7 MR. KASSNER: 7 feet I believe, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. DINIZIO. MEMBER DINIZIO: Who lives in the vacant lot, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was the gentleman that just came by. MR. KASSNER: Mr. Palmeri. MEMBER DINIZIO: He doesn't live there though, it's vacant. MR. KASSNER: No, he lives in Flushing. MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems to me that you're putting that in his 5 feet from his front yard. MR. KASSNER: Yes, and he agreed to that. I met him yesterday and he has no objection to it. He actually, I should add, that I've been using with his permission, his shed, which is in my rear yard, about 5 feet in from his property line. I'm Using it for 25 years Page 94 - Hearing transcripts ~A~pril 1~6> 1998 - Board of Appeals and it's .getting pretty dilapidated and one day he's going to sell the property. In fact, he's retired now and I suspect he's going to move out. He's glad to meet me and we certainly have ( ). He ( ) the whole lawn and he's a good neighbor. I told him that I use the shed and I thanked him all those years, but it's time I have my own. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: think? So he's going to build on this lot now, you MR. KASSNER: I don't know. You know, you ask his wife. It's a typical story. His wife wants to stay with her daughter who lives in Flushing and he'd like to come out here and go fishing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I have no problems with this application. I think this really is a case where having two front yards is truly a curious technicality of the way the roads are laid out down there. Finding them is the big problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hopefully you'll be brief, Mrs. TORTORA? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: mean that in a - No questions, how impressive. I don't MEMBER TORTORA: get too overjoyed. Yes, I know you're glad about it, but, don't CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Can any of the Board clarify to me what are the front yards here? MEMBER TORTORA: This is Wigwam Way here. where it's going to be, Tepee, right there, - This is actually CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's got two front yards. MEMBER TORTORA: And there's the shed here. MEMBER HORNING: I' mean it looks like it's in his back yard. MEMBER TORTORA: Don't be logical. MEMBER COLLINS: It's not what the code says. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no Page 95 - Hearing ~l'ranscripts ~,A~pril ]~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 96 - Hearing 'l'ranscripts ~A~pril ~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals 11':02 P.M. - Appl. No. 4540 - MELISSA SPIRO AND OTHERS Location of Property: 340 Glenwood Road and 295 East Road, Cutchogue; 1000-110-6-5 and 11.2. Continuation of Hearing held February 23, 1998. This is a Waiver request under the merger law, Article II, Section 100-25 for 1000-110-6-5. which consists of approx, one-half acre. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've read your letter. We're very simply just going to close the hearing. There's is nothing more that you are requesting and that's the extent. Does anybody have any questions of Ms. Dory? (Heard no response.) MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 97 - Hearing transcripts ~4~pril 1~6, 1998 - Board of Appeals 11:23 P.M. - Appl. No. 4563 - NANCY REEVE: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Location of Property: 2055 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck; 1000-123-6-1. This is a request to continue construction in the "as built" location of a foundation for a new single-family dwelling under Building Permit 24629Z issued 2/3/98, and Variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 17, 1998, Notice of Disapproval, which denied an application to construct a new single family dwelling for the following reasons: Under Article XXIV, 100-244B, for nonconforming lots, the existing foundation at 33 feet 9 inches does not meet the minimum requirement of 40 feet for front yard setback to the right-of-way. Right-of-way is not in use at this time..." (Note: Pending building permit #24629Z issued February 3, 1998 for a new 2-story single family dwelling with rear covered porch as applied for.) I have a copy of the survey dated March 13, 1998, indicating the foundation at 33 feet 9 inches to the property line and which is the nature of this application and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Scaramucci how are you tonight. MR. SCARAMUCCI: Good Mr. GOEHRINGER, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What happened here? Alright. What would you like to tell us? MR. SCARAMUCCI: Well we applied for a building permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SCARAMUCCI: There was quite a bit of an investigation done as far as the status of this lot, whether it was actually a lot or not. A single and separate was required by the town and we provided that and it was determined that it was a single and separate lot. It was in the Building Department probably six or seven weeks. During all of this process the house was laid out e×actly as you see it on this location survey as part of our application for the permit. The right-of-way was shown on the survey and a permit was subsequently issued. It was insured by the same Building Inspector that stopped the job. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: right-of-way? What is the actual footage to the MR. SCARAMUCCI: The actual footage to the right-of-way is 20 foot right-of-way and we have 33.9, so it's 13.9. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's 13.9, alright. MR. SCARAMUCCI: The right-of-way as it's stated on the application was not in use, is not in use and just as a point of Page 98 - Hearing lranscripts ~.April L6, 1998 - Board of Appeals information, the property that is aeeess by this right-of-way, is owned by the neighbors to the north. CHA~IRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out to you, that I had a discussion yesterday with Mr. Swicki who you know works for - MR. SCARAMUCCI: Yes, Ms. Norris. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Norris, alright, and he indicated to me that he had mentioned to Susan Norris, the nature of this application and that Susan would speak to Nancy Reeve when she returns from Florida. Just so you're aware of it. MR. SCARAMUCCI: OK. I have that same information. Nancy just told me about it. Our point is that the permit was given to us. There was amble time to review the survey. The construction was allowed to continue, the lot was cleared, the whole foundation was placed. Upon the first inspection, the foundation inspection, the Building Inspector noticed that according to this code which I think the town should look at, calling right-of-way roads, doesn't seem to make any logical sense to me. I'm just a simple builder, a business man. But, it doesn't make any sense to call it essentially a driveway to one lot, a road. I thought roads had to have public access. It doesn't belong to the town but to the municipality or the association. MEMBER TORTORA: Probably at one time, they probably did. MR. SCARAMUCCI: Well I think it's a, you know, I'm not a lawyer, it's just logic to me. It doesn't sound logical. But, flag lots all have roads now? It doesn't make any sense. But, aside from that, I'm not here to argue the point of law. What I'm here to do, is ask for a variance. We obviously have a hardship. We have a foundation in the ground. It'll cost thousands and thousands of dollars to move that foundation. The Building Department had amble time to notify us of this violation in the side yard, or second front yard technically. So, that's really our position. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mit. Scaramucci? Alright. Anybody have any questions of MR. HORNING: I have a couple. I notice that the application for the Building Permit is December 11, 97 and you've got the Building Permit for February 3, 1998. When did you start the foundation? MR. SCAItAMUCCI: Probably February 6th or 7th. MR. HORNING: Within a few days of receiving the permit? MR. SCARAMUCCI: Yes. MR. HORNING: And was that site inspection that you referred to that provoked 'the Notice of Disapproval? ~ Pa~ge 99 , Aisril - Hearing xranscripts 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, stop work order. MR.,~HORNING: Oh, stop work order. MR. SCARAMUCCI: work order. Well it was inspected. think it's in the stop MEMBER TORTORA: When they did the foundation? MEMBER COLLINS: The foundation survey is dated March 13th. MR. SCARAMUCCI: The first foundation inspection, oh, he didn't issue a card. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, he didn't issue the card? He just stopped it? MR. SCARAMUCCI: No he didn't issue a card. He called me and told me there was a problem. He didn't issue the card. MEMBER DINIZIO: You made the appeal on 3/18, so- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that was approximately the same time he got the foundation surveyed. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was about 5 weeks. MEMBER COLLINS: Five weeks. MR. SCARAMUCCI: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else George? Anybody else? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'd just like to say, Mr. Scaramucci, don't try to find the logie in this because you're low ball. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you say you would what? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just realize that this is the way things are. I notice he has a nice full head of hair and I don't want him to lose it, espeeially over this. I was a little coneerned about the time frame but I think it comes down to, I mean you waited a couple of months mobility. You got it, you relied on it. The appeal, I mean it looks to me like you even pushed the house to the opposite side of that right-of-way for whatever reason. You know it just looks to me like you purposely moved it to one side of the lot for whatever reason. That's certainly fine by everybody, you know, you don't need variances there and I don't think you'll have, in my opinion, I think you have a pretty good ease of what you need to have, niee going. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, anybody else like to speak in for or against this? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Page 100 - Hearing ~Transcripts ~AFril 1~, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motign carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Hearing closed. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD DATE d,/~o/~ F Town Clerk,