Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/11/1998 HEARINGPp. INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD June 11, 1998 1 Appl. No. 4547-RIVERHEAD BUILDING SUPPLY CO. 7 Appl. No. 4568-DOMINICK SEGRETE 14 Appl. No. 4569-FRANK KROPF 16 Appl. No. 4570-JOSEPH FRAZZITTA 20 Appl. No. 4572-NICHOLAS METHUAN 23 Appl. No. 4574-PREM CHATPAR 47 Appl. No. 4575-FRANK GASTON 49 Appl. No. 4571-WALTER MILLIS 54 Appl~ No. 4576-CHARLES D. SNYDER 56 Appl. No. 4577-CARL & LYNNE FRITSCHER 58 Appl. No. 4578-STEPHEN & ANGELA PUTZI 61 Appl. No. 4580-ALBERT & JANICE RATTI 63 Appl. No. 4544-MARTIN ROSEN (Owner:Broker & Ano.) Transcript of Public Hearings June 11, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 5:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4547 - RIVERHEAD BUILDING SUPPLY CO. (As per Board Resolution adopted May 19, 1998). This is a request for Variances based upon the Building Inspector's January 2, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: (1) The proposed structure being located in an LIO District is permitted to have a maximum of 60 feet of frontage on one street. The proposed building is approximately 115 ft. facing Rt. 25. Pursuant to Article XIII, Section 100-133C; (2) When fences are located in or along side and rear yards, they shall not exceed 6-1 / 2 feet in height, pursuant to 100-231B..." Location of Property: 74610 and 74500 Main Road, Greenport, N.Y.; 1000-46-1-1 and 2.1, combined as a single lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The first hearing on the Agenda is on behalf of the reopening of Riverhead Building Supply. It is a hearing that has continued and on the Board's Motion at the last Special Meeting, there were a couple of issues that we wanted to clear up as we started to deliberate on this particular application, and I would like to welcome Mrs. Moore here again. How are you tonight ? MRS. MOORE: I'm fine thank you. have all of them back. I do have the cards and I do BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Good, OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reading and this is a new thing for me too, because I have never read from verbatim from a prior transcript, OK, but that's what I'm doing, just a second. It reads, "Secondly, the fire issue", this is your statement, "the building will be sprinkled." I assume that means that you will have a fire sprinkle system in the building. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE: Yes. PaRe 2 - Hearing Transcripts June ~11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. " We've explained that, or responded to that question previously in writing.", and remember you said," So, it is actually going to be much safer. I don't want to say it's unsafe now, but even safer than it is presently. The fact that the materials 'will be stored also, takes care of any concerns with regard to the chemicals." I assume you mean treated lumber. "The fact that they will be under cover, they will be sprinkled, they'll be more of a control environment should make it even more stable than they are now." MRS. MOORE: I was responding to the comments that were made previous to that response. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. When we began to deliberate, we ~failed to realize, or I failed to realize that, of course we have ~specific areas where there is going to be storage outside. The Board's question really or questions of what's going to be stored outside? Now, we realize that that has no specific involvement within the variance aspects. However, we do have at least one member of the community that is of concern based upon the residentiality of the easterly side of this particular piece of property. So if you would just comment and tell us what these materials are that are going to be stored outside and I have specific suggestion and that's basically my cup of tea. MRS. MOORE: Well, I think in general lumber presently what is being stored may be that may be answered best, would you Jeff, or? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. RUSSELL GOODALE: I'm Russell Goodale. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? RUSSELL GOODALE: Good. The lumber that we have outside right now, called fir and CCA some of it will be stored outside. We've been storing lumber outside now for fifty years. I think the other lumber yard, Penny Lumber, the other lumber yards, all over the island have been storing outside without a problem. I think we have a letter, the CCA. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK, you keep going. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have a particular problem with that at all. The issue came up that everything was going to be stored inside and I think that was a misnomer. RUSSELL GOODALE: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: And so that when we started to discuss this issue then we realized that there was going to be bulk storage outside. RUSSELL GOODALE: There will be some. PaRe 3 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you choose to put it on both sides of the building as opposed to one side of the building, Mr. Goodale? I mean I'm not trying to put you on the spot. RUSSELL GOODALE: I don't think we've actually laid it out as to what exactly is going to go where yet. Hopefully most of it will be inside. But, there will be some outside. Specifically what's going to be where, I don't really think we know yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then the concern came up with, was this wood that was loaded on the trucks for delivery the next morning and was that actually going to be stored on vehicles outside, you know, and so it did end up to be a discussion and we were just concerned about how it was going to be stayed. RUSSELL GOODALE: That's a tough question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that has no bearing on the situation as long as, but now, this has a bearing on the situation. If we have a specific concern, from a neighbor, on the east side, why couldn't all the lumber that has to be stored not to exceed six feet in height, be stored on the easterly side and actually bunkered~ to a berm, and bermed on that side, and that's basically a discussion that we have had? In other words, taking everything and placing on the east side, and actually putting a berm in front of it. RUSSELL GOODALE: That might work but, I would hate today - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not saying everything. I'm not talking 100% of it. I'm talking the major storage of the outside lumber being placed on the easterly side of the building, and then plantings on the opposite side of that, so as to take some of the obscurity of the size of this building. Please, I'm not complaining about the building, I'm only saying the size of it, which is excess of 50,000 sq. ft. RUSSELL GOODALE: We haven't had a chance to actually lay out what will be outside of this building. Hopefully it'll be minimal. We want to keep everything we can inside. There will be some outside storage without a doubt. If we could put most of it on the west side or the rear of it, we will. But, I would hate, I don't want To make a promise tonight and say, listen we're not going to put anything on the east side because we might have to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, actually we want it on the east side and we'd like you to berm in front of it and then put plantings. RUSSELL GOODALE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean that's what I would like, I don't know how the Board feels. MRS. MOORE: The east side, that's the Driftwood Cove side? 'Page 4 - Hearing ~l~nscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: You want us to store on the Driftwood Cove side? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I would like you to bunker that side. I would like you to berm it I should say. I'd like you in effect berm in front of the storage areas. On the outside storage areas. MRS. MOORE: Well, I mean, you're talking about an area that is a 34 foot buffer right now. A natural buffer most likely because it's been vegetated, and then beyond that, there is probably a hundred, almost one hundred, and you figure 122 is the property line. So less 30, that's 90 a, probably another 95 feet of distance between the 30 foot buffer that's required by code, and where storage of lUmber will actually take place. If right now based on this plan, again, you're talking about a working lumber yard, and to place conditions on where storage is going to be at this stage of the game, is very premature, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not, eonditions. What we're asking for - we're not placing RUSSELL GOODALE: How high of a berm are we talking about? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, if the lumber is 6 feet, it would make sense to put a 6 foot berm up and put plantings on top of it. RUSSELL GOODALE: Well, in some cases it'll be taller than 6 foot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the code says 6 feet. That's the reason why I mentioned it Mr. Goodale. I believe the code says the storage is not to exceed 6 feet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The height. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The height. MRS. MOORE: storage. The height of a structure that's not height of the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Height of the storage. MRS. MOORE: I don't think there's any storage being having a height requirement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was my understanding. RUSSELL GOODALE: OK, I didn't realize that either. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's in the file.' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I'm trying to do is lessen the impact of the building on the easterly side. This is very difficult to do Pa~e 5 - Hearing ~,anscripts June 11, 1998 Board of Appeals this without having you people in front of us. purpose of just briefly reconvening. So, that is the RUSSELL GOODALE: I mean if we can put a berm in there and it doesn't affect our outside storage, we have enough room left. I for one, I got two brothers here I have to talk to, I for one, have no problem. It will be a problem if it effects the storage area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but I don't want it to effect the storage area. I don't want it to effect the internal workings of your building, or the external, or the ingress and egress to your building. RUSSELL GOODALE: I have to, I haven't got a problem if the, if we have enough room to store them. Yes, I really don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. That was the major brunt of what I wanted to say and some of the discussion that they may have during the deliberation hearing. While we have everybody here, Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions, alright. Again completing the process, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Alright, seeing no further hands, no comments, I guess we'll close the hearing and we thank you very much fOr that information. I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. MRS. MOORE: For the record, that time frame perfectly ran from the original close of the hearing. So, 62 days, that's why I thought you would get to it tonight to be able to accommodate the time frame. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: not. Yes, it's my understanding that it does MRS. MOORE: I don't want to have to defend an action by anybody else arguing that point. So, that's why if it's possible - Pa~e 6 - Hearing ~anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MRS. MOORE: May 14th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When was the last closure? May 14th. But 62 days from that would be - Probably July 16th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: July '23rd. MRS. MOORE: May, June, oh, great I gave you 30 days. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have to August 10th. Pa~e 7 - Hearing ~[~nscripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals. 6:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4568 - DOMINICK SEGRETE This is a variance request under the Zoning Code, Article XXII, Section 100-9.39.4B, based upon the Building Inspector's April 9, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application for an inground pool and deck addition due to its proposed location within 75 feet from the bulkhead, concrete wall, rip rap or similar structure, at 4000 Wunneweta Road, Nassau Point Club Properties, Cutchogue, N.Y.; 1000-111-14-22.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have one letter of concern dated June ll, 1998 that I have just received. I have another letter of a June 10th and I have a copy of a sketch of the survey indicating the entire piece of property and I have an evaluation from the applicant indicating the square footages for the improvements, one of which is, actually both of which are before us, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? MR. SEGRETE: I am very fine. Thank you. I'm Dominick Segrete. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice to meet you. MR. SEGRETE: I have the green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, we'd love to have those, thank you. MR. SEGRETE: I also have a letter of a positive response. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, wasn't that nice. Thank you. Any time you're ready? MR. SEGRETE: I'm ready. You want me to describe this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. SEGRETE: Well it is our desire to build a pool as indicated on the site plan. Approximate size is 20 x 37 feet, 623 sq. ft. per the manufacturer's specification. In March we received an approval from the DEC to proceed with this application and submitting it to you. The site plan I think is, I hope pretty clear. I drew-it myself and it shows at its closest point, the pool is 33 feet from the bulkhead. If anyone is familiar with the site because of the grade conditions it's really the only logical place this pool can be constructed. There is a zone of approval from the DEC, which is indicated by a dotted line that extends from the 90 degree bulkhead back to the house and we indicate the pool being a 2 foot setback. That is the zone of construction approval as per the DEC. The pool would be constructed, it's a vinyl pool and it's a vinyl pool because of the economy of the construction and we feel as an architect by profession that I certainly have the capability and my wife Pauline, to make this a very beautiful construction. We intend to adequately shrub and plant the surrounding area and create a Paie 8 - Hearing ~[~nscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals sense of privacy. And, aS I said to my neighbors in the letter, that it is our desire to retire in this location. We've been here since 1989, and I feel that this is a very nice part for us to live in. We really enjoy being here and the pool I think will just enhance the benefit of the property for us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see from the original plan that you scaled the pool down, is that correct? MR. SEGRETE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the distance of the 33 feet, I should speak into the mike, I apologize, the distance of the 33 feet, is that to the pool or to the actual deck? MR. SEGRETE: It's to the pool itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ground level? Itself. and the briek paving will be at MR. SEGRETE: We'll extend beyond that and it won't be any higher than 8 inches above the grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Is that what the Building Department has told you that 8 inches is a - MR. SEGRETE: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, OK, that's, - MR. SEGRETE: No, it's just my own feeling that if it's within 8 inches, it becomes part of the grade and part of the terrain. It's not something that's going to be elevated or become part of a structure. It's a dimension that I feel will give us the ability to kind of take into consideration any discrepancies within the grade of the or the landscape. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, because that's still lot coverage area, since it is above grade. If you could calculate that for us so we have it, it would be appreciated. In other words the 4 feet by 8 inches all the way around. MR. SEGRETE: Well I can't do it right at the moment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: it now, no. No, no, no, no, I'm not asking you to do MR. SEGRETE: But I would be very happy to just say, let's put it on grade and I think that would hopefully solve some issues. I have no reason to make it 8 inches or 4 inches. I'm simply saying that a brick is 2 inches thick, a little bit of sandbag is going to sit right on grade. Certainly a pool has to be at a zero datum line so that the water doesn't spill out. So, I really don't care if it's 8 inches, 4 inches, or no inches. Pai'e 9 - Hearing T,,~nscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: above grade, it's - Alright, I just want to say, that if it is MR. SEGRETE: It is not our desire to make it above grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, it's, it's lot coverage and so on and so forth. Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of this nice gentleman? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Do you propose on having a fence? MR. SEGRETE: Absolutely. MEMBER TORTORA: Where will the fence be? MR. SEGRETE: We really haven't solved that issue yet. Certainly putting a fence up is something we would like not to have, but, the plans will have to be filed, with your BUilding Department and the rules and regulations so described that we have at least a four foot fence that protects the pool from outsiders and we will comply with that. It's simply a matter of is it a wonderful picket white fence, or is it a black chain link fence that will be invisible within the folia~e. We really haven't made that determination yet. But, if the and I know that the regulations do require that we have a fence and we will have that along with the self closing doors from the house down to the patio or the area of the pool. MEMBER TORTORA: coverage is? What did you propose, submit that your lot MR. SEGRETE: The lot coverage by survey is 19,274 sq. ft. and that's on the survey as part of the original submission. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's a lot size, right? MR. SEGRETE: That's the lot size. The entire parcel of land from property line to building line. The fax I sent to Gary Fish, who is I believe one of your inspectors, and he requested that I do some calculations and sign and seal it with my own architect license, which I did, and that letter was sent on May 5, 1998. I had my office do the calculations and 20% supposed maximum coverage it seems that we're within 20 feet of that maximum coverage. MEMBER TORTORA: I see how you did it. I just a, you, there's no breakdown on the calculations that's all so, and because it is so close. Page 10 - Hearing 'l ~.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SEGRETE: There is a breakdown on the sheet right here. We do show a breakdown by area of deck. You will notice that we did not include the decking that was below grade as instructed by Gary Fish. MEMBER TORTORA: Or the patio or the pool? MR. SEGRETE: Well the pool area is covered. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's 623- MR. SEGRETE: 380, 480, 2350 for the home and that totaled up to our calculations of being 3833. 20% of 19,274 was 3854. And, I didn't back into the number. We just did it, that was the result of it. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all from me, Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I don't have any questions, but, I just like to make a point in the record that I think in this case it's unfortunate that our code exempts patios below grade from building permits and therefore from being counted and coveraged. Because, in the case of Mr. Segrete's house, the below grade patio is a - MR. SEGRETE: It's substantially below grade. MEMBER COLLINS: It's substantially below grade. It's a real structure and it's quite large. I think the lot coverage here as a practical matter is very high. But, I recognize that in terms of the law, you do get in within the limit. I'm just sort of making a beef on the record that I think it's unfortunate that that's the way our law works. I have hesitancies about approving a project with a~ that's this close to the water and really quite small front yard, but, I can't come up with a major objection to it. So, I'll pass. MR. SEGRETE: Just, just one comment. Obviously, the shape of the pool, I felt as a professional would be more in keeping with the environment. The soft edges, the natural stone, the way we want to shrub and plant it. Our first desire was to build a rectilinear pool because you could put it on automatic shutter on it and you wouldn't have to be contending with the laborious issues of cleaning leaves and all of that kind of thing. But, our family got together and we said, well we just felt that was a little hard edge and it was a little anti environmental. So we went at some additional cost, and~ also I don't mind telling you, it's not going to make me very happy cleaning this pool every weekend, but, to soften it and to make it more amendable to the environment we just took this position architecturally. And, I have very, very high concerns about what this is going to look like. I would hope that your inspectors went and visited the site. We've taken very good care of this property, we've reestablished some sea bits that were previous to our ownership destroyed by some construction in the ramps, and we're Pa~'e 11 - Hearing '¢,-anscripts June il, [[998 - Board of Appeals very proud of this property, and we really enjoy being there, and it's our future, and we thought a pool would make it more amendable to us as a family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to the question from Mrs. Goldhush. What type of plantings are you anticipating so as to hold down the noise. MR. SEGRETE: Well, there's really a couple of reasons for planting. The noise is certainly one issue and I read that letter. Number l, it distress me that I had to find out that a very dear friend was ill through a letter like this. That's unfortunate. I live there in the summer and I hadn't been out there for a while and Alvin and I, I thought were very good friends and I think we still are. The real reason for shrubbery aside from holding down the noise, is obviously when you come down our driveway, I didn't want that pool to be the very first thing a car saw as it came down. I'm very concerned about what this looks like. So our thinking is to put some kind of shrubbery and we've had Trimbles over to take a look at it. To put some kind of shrubbery that would be probably 5-6 feet high, especially at the bottom of the driveway so that as you came down there wasn't that sort of view of headlights especially if you were in the pool or an automobile's front end. There's going to be a certain amount of berming to do with this, because as you can all realize that the property kind of folds off towards the waterline. So the idea is to build a little bit of a retaining situation with some high beams which is already on the property as part of the vocabulary of the architecture. And then within that to do some very handsome shrubs combined with some sea grass, because the idea would be, I want this to kind of feel like a natural environment. Right now the family and I are debating about the color of the liner. Well obviously the, I brought the catalogues with me. They're just filled with turquoise liners, and we're looking at darker colors so that it isn't so jarringly out of sync with the property. So yes, we are planning to put a, to growth than have some high elements around it. To not only defuse the sound, but, also to defuse the visibility of what this is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, in a situation like this and we have one going on, it's been going on for three hearings which I don't want to carry you through, out in Greenport. We have asked for a landscaping plan. Obviously if there was no objection, we would allow the owner to go if the Board was so inclined to vote on the application, in favor, favorably as, we would you know, allow you to do your own. But, I think it's encumbered upon us in doing our job, that we should see the landscaping plan. Primarily on the Goldhush side and primarily with any neighbors that are concerned about additional noise. Please this has nothing to do with you. This is subsequent owners, and so on and so forth. Pa~e 12 - Hearing ~ ~.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SECRETE: I absolutely understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're in no way saying that you are a noisy person. I am only - MR. SEGRETE: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please - MR. SECRETE: that issue. Really, I would really like to respond to if I may to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely you may respond, but, remember we would appreciate if before the 22nd of June, that you could give us a landscaping plan and that we may enhance it or de-enhance it based upon our feelings, the Board's feelings. It takes three votes and you know, a lot of times we have straight unanimity, and sometimes we don't. And so, if you could afford us that, we would appreciate it. MR. SEGRETE: I ask you to apply some judgment in a situation like this. We have a pool that 15 feet away are 75 foot trees that are very, very, dense. There is no way that the Goldhushes can see this pool, or even hear this pool. My 6 foot high shrubs are going to be like rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. It means absolutely nothing. I want to do it for the aesthetic quality of it. But, as 'far as the sound goes, mother nature has provided the best of all possible shrubs, they're oaks and they're very, very tall, and they surround the property, and denser than that, and higher than that, and more obscured than that, I don't know how we can get. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. If you wouldn't mind, just give us an idea of what you intend to do anyway. I will in the interim come back and do another visit, prior to - MR. SEGRETE: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. While you're standing - MR. SEGRETE: Do we just submit that through the- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: quickly as you can. Just send it to us, or fax it to us as MR. SEGRETE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much. We thank you for coming in. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing receipt of the landscaping plan. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Pa~e 13 - Hearing ~'~anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pa~e 14 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:22 P.M. - Appl. No. 4569 - FRANK KROPF This is a variance request under Zoning Code Article III, Section 100-33, based upon the Building Inspector's April 8, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application for an addition which will create a nonconformity in that the existing garage will not be located in the rear yard at 1820 Marlene Lane, Laurel, N.Y.; 1000-144-2-33. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll be right with you Sir. I have a copy of the survey indicating the placement of the garage and the house as it exists today, and we have a copy of the plan indicating the addition that this gentleman intends to put on this house and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Would you just state your name for the record? MR. KROPF: Fine, Frank Kropf. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us, anything? MR. KROPF: Well, basically, also in that package, you'll find a survey dated 1967. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the other one. Right, I have that one, right in back of MR. KROPF: And it indicates the porch in the back and patio and basically the same form that we have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. KROPF: The garage, when it was built, OK, was after this survey, OK, and before the 1988 survey. But yet, the two surveys are the same. So actually we have a nonconformity there now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. KROPF: OK and actually all we want to do, is just expand on that a little bit to a, we had, we have just moved back from the stala of Georgia. We plan on retiring here, and we need a little bit more room in the house and we thought this would be the best way to do it, is to expand into the rear yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I have absolutely no objection to it. I just want you to know that. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER DINIZIO: Ne. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I'll just go on the record as agreeing with Mr. Kropf that the nonconformity was already there because the garage Pa~e 15 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals was built 25 years ago and in fact, is not entirely in the rear yard. The architect's drawing on the big plan, makes it appear that the garage is entirely behind the house, but, it isn't. MR. KROPF: It isn't, no. MEMBER COLLINS: And so you have a nonconformity and you're not going to intensify it by expanding the house slightly to the rear, and I have no problem with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Anybody in the audience like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? I think you owe us one green card and I see it right up there. We hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. We thank you for coming in. Thank you for all of your information. MR. KROPF: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Motion made. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pa~e 16 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:27 P.M. - Appl. No. 4570 - JOSEPH FRAZZITTA This is a variance request under Zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for permission to construct deck addition with gazebo at a setback of less than 75 feet from the bulkhead at 1420 Inlet Way at Cedar Beach, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-92-1-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the placement of the house. We have had prior variances on this. I can remember one at least having been to tiffs house. It's a magnificent house and they are proposing a gazebo with deck attached approximately 15 feet from the westerly property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone would like to · be heard? How are you .tonight Sir? Could you state your name for the record? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can't hear you, Joel. mike over a little bit better. Just turn that JOEL DALY: My name is Joel Daly. I'm a builder in Greenport. We don't have a blueprint yet. Basically he wants to build a gazebo type. He has no trees in the backyard and it gets very windy and you can't hold an umbrella and we'd like to have some shade. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I can't hear him still. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we still can't hear you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: A little higher maybe. Can you pull that up a little bit? MR. DALY: He wants to build this gazebo because he has no trees, he has no shade and it gets very windy there in the afternoon and we'd like to some coverage and it would make it more comfortable for him when he is here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Joel, could you tell us, if you don't know tonight, could you just measure it for us, the distance of the gazebo to the bulkhead? I don't have that figure on it and get us that and get us the approximate size of the gazebo. I know you said you haven't arrive at that. MR. DALY: It's 16 x 20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 16 x 20. Do you have any idea if it will contain any utility, such as electricity or anything of that nature? MR. DALY: No it won't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. cards for us tonight for this one? And do you have any green MR. DALY: I have one. Page 17 - Hearing 2ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Joel before the 22nd please? Can you get us that information MR. DALY: Yes, OK, and you also need a blueprint? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be helpful. MR. DALY: Alright, very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, thank you for coming in. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, any questions of any of the Board Members? Actually the gentleman has walked out. I apologize. MEMBER DINIZIO: want. I can ask him to send a letter tomorrow, if you CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: come on back? You want to go get him and tell him to MEMBER DINIZIO: You want me to go get him? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, go get him. He's got him, thank you, thank you Sir. The Board has to ask you a couple of questions. MR. DALY: Oh, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, come on over here to the mike. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I realized you said, that you don't have actual plans for this structure, but you are eommitted to a size of 16 x 20 feet - MR. DALY: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Give or take a little bit. And it's described here as quote, "gazebo type deck", elose quote. Does that mean something like oh, say what's behind the front street stores in Greenport on Adam Street, or out here in the park at the corner of a- MR. DALY: It's going to be a gable roof to match his roof and it's going to have a round dormer type fake roof above it. There may be a window. MEMBER COLLINS: And it's going to be sitting - Page 18 - Hearing 2'ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. DALY: cedar. And it's being enclosed with a rail that's made out of MEMBER COLLINS: OK, and so it's going to have windows, actually it - MR. DALY: No windows. will be ( ) into the rOof. We'll have one window in the roof which MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, decorative, OK. But, at the working level, it won't be glazed? MR. DALY: No. MEMBER COLLINS: bluff? OK, and it's going to sit right at the top of the MR. DALY: It'll start at the top of the bluff and go out. MEMBER COLLINS: And go out. MR. DALY: It'll project out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean project into that foliage area that's basically supporting the, you know, the hill itself? MR. DALY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, well, excuse me, go ahead. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I was just going to say, where does this application stand with respect to the Trustees? Do they assert? MEMBER TORTORA: They may not have gotten it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I don't think it needs it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: goes. That would be the next step if it MEMBER TORTORA: He's here for the setback from the bulkhead before he gets anything and that's why - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the same time it's a - I mean you may get subject to, but, at MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to know exactly where you're proposing and how far away from the bulkhead it is. I'd like the exact distance from the house it is. How far it's going to project over the bluff and i'd like to see a set of plans. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins, did you have anything else? MEMBER COLLINS: No, that's fine, thank you. Page 19 - Hearing ~_ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I'll agree with the request with Lydia. need to know how far away it is from the bulkhead and - We MR. DALY: Excuse me, do we need something from the surveyor or is it OK, if I just measure it myself? MEMBER TORTORA: Whatever we grant you, we're going to, we're going to give you exact dimensions. So, it's important that it be fairly accurate. That's you know to your benefit to be as accurate as possible. MR. DALY: Would you prefer that if we did get a surveyor to lay it out and cheek it? MEMBER TORTORA: If that's what you can do, fine. MR. DALY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The concern is not to defoliate that bluff. I mean we're, that's, we're concerned about that. So, I mean, that should be clearly stated within any plans that we have and if you feel that you're going to stake it exactly you know, other than what's there now, then maybe you want to call us and we'll come back and take a look at it. It's up to you, alright? MR. DALY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Thanks for coming back in. Hearing no further comment, again I'll make a motion closing the hearing in receipt of all the things that we have requested. Does anybody want to second that? MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 20 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:33 P.M, - Appl. No. 4572 - NICHOLAS METHVAN This is a variance request under Zoning Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the Building Inspector's April 16, 1998 and April 19, 1998, Notices of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application for a deck and addition which will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 20% for this nonconforming lot. Location of Property: 1630 Theresa Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; 1000-115-14-3; a/k/a Lot 6, Deep Hole Creek Estates. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey dated December 21, 1993, indicating the house and the garage and the tennis court as it exists on the survey and showing the proposed addition for the deck and the proposed addition for the dwelling. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight? Could you just state your name for the record? MR. METHVAN: My name is Nicholas Methvan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And your wife's first name? MRS. METHVAN: Eileen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? MR. METHVAN: I have these cards for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, thanks. Thank you very much. MR. METHVAN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to explain to us exactly what you want to do there? MR. METHVAN: Sure. To the rear of the house, I want to put a 16 x 14 addition up with a deck attached to that. Approximately I have a small ranch now and my tennis eourt is considered a structure which puts me over the 20% lot coverage. This will give me 275 is lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's exactly what I calculate. Now, I calculated the addition at 16 x 24 .But, that includes the deck? MR. METHVAN: No, the addition is 16 x 14. The deck is 16 x 24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, that's right. I was reading something different. And there's no intentions of enclosing the deck? It's just going, it's going to remain open? MR. METHVAN: No, it's going to remain open. Pa~e 21 - Hearing ~l'ranseripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Questions on this Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Not right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: The proposed addition is 16 x 147 Is that right? MR. METHVAN: Living space and the deck is 16 x 24. MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck is 18 x 24, so we're going to be even at the back of the house and then go along the front of the house? MR. METHVAN: you go up. Correct, yes and the back of the house is where MEMBER DINIZIO: level or down? And the deck is going to be raised to the door MR. METHVAN: out there. To the door level to the sliding door that will be MEMBER DINIZIO: And any stairs coming off that? MR. METHVAN: the backyard. There will be approximately two or three stairs to MEMBER DINIZIO: They're going to go down the backyard, not the side? That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Alright, we'll see what develops. We'll ask if anybody else wants to speak and we'll let you know. We are probably not going to get to any of these decisions tonight. We will have a special meeting on the 22nd and then you'll hear by mail or you can call us the following day. MR. METHVAN: Oh, good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you very much. MR. METHVAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further questions? Quick hearing. Hearing no Page 22 - Hearing k~.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals further questions, I'll make a motion cloSing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pa~e 23 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:38 P.M. -Appl. No. 4574 - PREM CHATPAR This is a variance request under Zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B based upon the Building Inspector's March 10, 1998 and January 6, 1997 disapproving a Building Permit application for a proposed (two-story) addition to dwelling and proposed accessory garage location which are proposed within 75 feet of a bulkhead, concrete wall, or similar structure. Applicant's February 2, 1998 Affidavit states the proposed use of garage to be for "occupiable space" intended as a family room, library/study with wet-bar facility. Another January 6, 1997 Notice of Disapproval regarding this site was issued disapproving a proposed guest annex in proposed accessory garage, Article III, Section 100-31B(13). Location of Property: 680 Midway Road, Southold, N.Y.; 1000-90-2-9.1; Cedar Beach Park, Lot 111-112 part of 144 (as a single parcel). (The Chairman read the legal notice and application introduction for the read and the audience.) CHAIRMAN: And we have a copy of the survey indicating the present garage, elongated as proposed. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Mr. and Mrs. Chatpar, Mr. and Mrs. Pendergast and Mr. Cuviera are here. We did receive the green cards. We have the affidavit from the owner saying there is no intention of having habitable space. It is to be an office for the doctor separate from the house and connected by a trellis, and was with the paperwork that the Building Inspector reviewed when he reissued the Notice of Disapproval. The only issue is the setback from the bulkhead. (Ref: survey.). The property is 44,995 sq. ft. From the survey you can also 'and from your own observations you see that we are, this property, the dimensions of this property and the location is really a magnificent piece at the far end of Midway Road, Midway Road, yes, and it borders on Peconic Bay, bulkheaded, Peconic Bay is bulkheaded, Little Peconic Bay on the Bay. It also is bulkheaded on the easterly side of Midway Inlet, and then to the north of the property it is not bulkheaded but it has the actual inlet - more like a pond. The inlet has been closed in - it shows it is not .open on the survey, but there is probably some tidal action that still occurs there. The owners have obtained a DEC Permit for the proposed structures as they've been proposed. The setbacks to the bulkheads are. 66 and 54 feet and then 39 and 46 feet from the bulkhead. Again, because of the dimensions of this property we have various setbacks. The shortest setback is 39 feet and that is actually as a result of the bulkhead that we constructed by the owners and to protect the beach and to enclose from Midway Inlet to the bulkhead that runs to the north. I have the survey of the original dimensions of the property and original setbaeks of the existing structures and the original setbacks are at 52 feet. There Pa~e 24 - Hearing Transcripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals was no bulkhead that was constructed at the time so therefore that 39 foot setback did not exist. Let me find it for you because I reduced it so it would be, here we go. From the first survey that I'm going to submit to you is also prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno. I had cut off the time, the date, but, it was 90, when you first bought the property in 96, correct? The original survey at this ( ) (Someone responded, yes), 94, OK. So that the first thing that they did was to protect the property by putting in a bulkhead, north of the beach. And the existing setbacks are shown separate survey that is dated, March 7, updated survey, March 7, 1996, that is after the new bulkhead was constructed and the setbacks that exist for the existing structure and you will see that the existing setbacks are at 59..8, 75.8 to the mean high water mark and again 52, so that many of the existing structures are already nonconforming. So we already have a situation where the existing structures do not conform with the 75 foot rule. The existing structures were built long ago, prior to the enactment of the code. And, what the owners propose to do is to renovate the house and demolish the existing garage that is there now that has some a, the foundation is somewhat undermined because of flooding problems and rebuild both in character in design with the main house. The renovation to the main house. I have and I'm sure the neighbors (inaudible) some day if we ever get through the permit process with a (changing of tape, beginning inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: She gave the plan. MRS. MOORE: This is actually a, it's a design that has been cutback and redesigned. Because of the DEC Permit process there was at one time a beautiful porch that was going to be going around the circular, the octagonal end of the house and the DEC had that part of the structure removed. So, they had already been cut backed to the minimal and without jeopardizing the integrity of the architectural features of this renovation. With regard to the first standard of whether or not there will be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, this property, the location of the property is at the very end. It is somewhat isolated and in a peninsula from the rest of the community and the. There is a long history of existing structures all along the Bay which are actually at a less than, much less than what is being proposed by the owners. I went and researched all of the property owners that are along the Bay and I will submit that to you. I have a outlined of all the property owners by tax lot number. The NF means, now a formerly owner based on how I found it and the approximate distance to the bulkhead. And, the first property is, furthest west. I'll start furthest west from this property and it is now a formerly of Moi. It is approximately now 30 feet from the bulkhead. Then we head east, Harrington is approximately 35 feet from the bulkhead. Then further east, Hall is 30 feet from the bulkhead. One more to the east, is lot 5, and you'll have that all in your record. I'm just going very briefly. Amend or Austin Powers is 28 feet to the top of the bluff and this property has three sets of bulkhead, and Paie 25 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals ultimately is 60 feet from the bulkhead. Tuite is right next door. They received a variance from the 75 foot setback and their structure is 39.-1/9. feet from the bulkhead. The survey, the decision says 39.-1/2 feet but, the survey looks more like 9.5 feet, but, I'm sure it is what is, what was authorized. Then, if we go on the other side on the easterly side of the Inlet, also continuing on the Bay, lot 13.1 is vacant, then one more down is Wiederman, is approximately 40 feet from the bulkhead and then finally lot 16, furthest to the west, is Danilczyk, and they're also 40 feet and have a, well this is the one with three bulkheads. I have that identified at, I have a Suffolk County Tax Map that has highlighted the properties and the surveys that I've attached and then I got the Zoning Board decision and the various surveys of the different properties so that you can confirm for yourself that most of the properties here are developed at approximately 30 to 40 feet from the setback, from the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: I have also, Dr. Pendargrass was kind enough to take a picture of the view from her property where the beach is and a ( ) because at 30 feet it's quite close to the water where her beach and her bulkhead is, westerly direction and again you can see the setbacks. (I'11 give that to you, the second time around), and then there's a second photograph that's somewhat confusing because I put a little corner, there's a little triangle that's intended to be the Chatpar house, the existing house. And, if you look to the west, Tuite's house is the only house you really see. And their house again, is quite close to the bulkhead and where the proposed Chatpar hOuse is going to be, it will all be yard. So, there won't be any impact at least looking in the easterly direction. With regard to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance will, the existing structures are again at 52 feet. So, right now they're nonconforming to the 75 foot ( ). The unique configuration of the lot is really what creates the setback problem in this case and if it were not, again for the one bulkhead that they put in themselves 'their closest setback line would be nonexistent. There would be a setback problem with regard to the existing house and the design feature there. The area variance is not substantial. The requirements are 75 feet. However, again the existing structure is 52 feet and the proposal is actually quite reasonable given the size of the property they have. They have not proposed to move any closer to the Bay and they are for the most part of this general decision, the general location of the existing garage so that they have still maintained a 66 foot setback from the inlet, the closed inlet. I'd like to point out to the Board and I'm sure you're aware that the Board has given previous variances in this area. One that I'm very familiar with is Peter and Barbara Hertz. This was on Cedar Point Drive, Appeal No. 3543. This was one that I have intimate knowledge of. We received variances from the Board. The neighbor DeLco sued the owners and the Court ultimately sustained the variances that were granted. The variances in that particular case was approximately 53 feet because of the Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals location of the house and it was quite a unique house that you had to cross one property, cross the wetland area, and then get to the waterfront bay parcel. So, it was a very unique parcel. Also again, next door to Appeal 3697, also obtained variances from this Board with regard to 75 foot setback and obtained a 32.6 inch setback. I don't know if that number is correct or not, but within that range. So far I've given myself two separate setbacks here. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. They went through an extensive DEC review. It took two years to get DEC approval. The property, they would have renovated it by now, but, with the two year process with the DEC, and finally getting permits, the permits themselves require them to mitigate along the inlet non bulkheaded area and the Rugosa Rose that it will be planted along that area as a buffer. So, the environmental conditions and effects have been thoroughly reviewed and are not an issue here. The difficulty has not been self created, they're proposing everything with permits and going through the process and they are again, have, they have a greater setback than their existing structures. And, whether this is the minimal variance that is necessary and adequate and preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, health, safety and welfare of the community. You can see from the design from the plans, this house is being renovated, remodeled with a great deal of care and lots of windows. The view is magnificent from three directions and they want to preserve that view. So, that is the design, that they've proposed and the renovations that they're seeking to get approval from all the different Boards is, really the minimal that is reasonable and will preserve and balance their desire needs with the setback requirements that are in place. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You said you had the architect here? MRS. MOORE: Yes, he's right here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: second? Alright. Could I speak with him for a MRS. MOORE: Yes, let me give you the photograph and I think everything else is in your file already. The survey has already been submitted this day. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight Sir? state your name for the record? Could you MR. CUVIER: Yes, Quad Cuvier. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How much higher, Mr. Cuvier, is this house going to be when it would be completed than it at its present situation? MR. CUVIER: The current house, main house, is two stories in height. The new addition will basically also be two stories in height. The only point that I would be a little more prominent in Pafe 27 - Hearing 'x~.anseripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals the balance of the roof would be the peak of the octagon at the southeast corner of the addition. But, only by a small amount. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How important from a architectural practical point of view, is this addition that this person is anticipating or proposing? I mean in reference to, Mrs. Moore used the word balance, and I think that's probably a word that is something that's akin to you. Could you explain that to us? MR. CUVIER: The function of the house as it currently stands, is really inadequate for the family's current needs. It's currently a five bedroom house, five small bedrooms up on the second floor. And, the living space on the first floor is rather small. They plan to do a lot of entertaining here at this house. It's also a get away respite for them on the weekends and vacation time and such and the current size of the house is definitely inadequate. So, we sought to set a balance architecturally both with the ordinance requirements of the Town, the DEC's requirements and the family's requirements to put up what we felt was the minimal that was needed to satisfy all parties involved. The addition we're talking about, is relatively a small one. It's a 212 sq. ft. footprint on the site. We're talking about the octagon now, representing 424 sq. ft. of actual space being added on. We're going to end up actually with four bedrooms on the second floor. The master bedroom suite being enlarged to allow for a lounge space in the second floor octagon, and a dinette space on the first floor off a renovated kitchen, that cur'ently is inadequate and very poor condition. The house right now, if you've seen the pictures, is basically a non' descript sar box and it would be the desire of my clients to end up with a Victorian style architecture. That's what we've been endeavor to do, and we feel that the enhancement of the house will improve the neighborhood and not be an eyesore and it'll look very attractive and certainly improve the property value and therefore the tax base to the town. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What exactly will be placed in that octagon area to your knowledge? MR. CUVIER: On the second floor there'll be a lounging space off the master bedroom where they can relax and take in the views out over Little Peconic Bay and on the first floor there'll be a dinette area to have breakfast and lunch and the other side we'll make a formal dining area for supper and for guests. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Before you 1cave, does anyone have any questions of the architect? No, we thank you very much Sir. We'll start with Mr. Homing. Do you have questions of Mrs. Moore, or the owner? MEMBER HORNING: I would ask why the septic system was rearranged? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know that? Why the septic system was rearranged? Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CUVIER: The septic system was rearranged in part because of the DEC's comments and those that we know we're going to encounter when we go to Suffolk County Health for their approval. The current system is very close to the bulkhead by the beach. In my opinion professionally, far too close than what's needed to protect the Bay and so it was our choice to spend the money and replace the existing totally and move it further inland into the center of the site so as to enhance the environment of the concerns that everyone had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why so long with the DEC on this project? Normally when you have a situation with bulkheaded property, I mean, they almost exempt themselves. Any suggestions? MR. CUVIER: There seems to be a concern that we went over time and time again about the amount of porch area and patio area that we had over and above the roof area of the house and the addition. They were not the concerns. The concerns was of the porch and patio areas which had to be taken off the plans to have minimal steps into the entrance and access of the house and it took some time. Unfortunately, the architectural was distracted in my opinion, because we had a beautiful Miranda and porch around the octagon that they insisted on having us take out, and so we ended up doing it. So, it took us two years to get that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Interesting, it's amazing. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I guess it's a question for the architect. Really briefly, what the rationality is for? I understand rational for tearing down the existing garage. But, what the rationale is for the placement of the new one sought of, you know as a point of departure, why not put it where the other one was? MR. CUVIER: One of the reasons was because of the relocation of the sanitary system having to put it in such a manner that it was bet~,veen the two buildings and far enough away from the well that is to the west of the property near Midway Road. All of the setbacks that are required both off the water, by the pump and things of that nature, is what caused us to push that a little bit further to the east, and not have the building crowd the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: This wood, proposed wood, I can't read what that is. Is that a trellis? MR. CUVIER: Trellis, that's right. Pa~e 29 - Hearing re ..anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Between the two, so it's going to be covered? MR. CUVIER: It would be a trellis with planting throughout it, vines and such. MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, you mean it's going to be both - MR. CUVIER: It's going to be attached to - MEMBER DINIZIO: that? it's actually going to be a covered walkway, is MR. OLIVER: At the moment it's proposed to be somewhat open with planting acting as a roof to the trellis. It. could be open for further discussion with the Town if that will attest to the roof versus, you know, the trellis. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, I just. MR. CUVIER: And incidentally, as you know, this is a flood plan area and we need to be eight feet above the high water mark to the floors of the structure and so, we kept it at that condition basically. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that going to structurally alter the exterior of the house as it sits with grade now? In other words are you going to have put substantial pilings in certain areas or anything of that nature? MR. CUVIER: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No? To support the foundation in any way? MR. CUVIER: No, we've checked that and we believe that the swale is adequate to support the building without problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So no breakaway foundation or anything of that nature is not necessary? MR. CUVIER: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, thank you again. Alright, we'll go into the question and answering part if we a, not of the applicant or his or her attorney or again the architect, etcetera. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Could we start right here first? Thank you. MR. PROVENCHER: My name is Bill Provencher. I have a prepared statement if you'll bear with me. It will cure my tendency to wonder. This is our first opportunity to address this matter as we were not invited to attend in 1996 which may have been an oversight by legal consultant representing the applicant at that time. It Page 30 - Hearing 'l'¢~anscripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals would appear that the law is quite specific as it relates to the changes requested by the applicants. In their proposal the plans refer to the proposed structure as a habitat. Habitat according to Miriam Webster is defined as an environment in which an organism normally lives or occurs. Further, it's defined as the typical place of residence of a person or a group. To allow construction to structure described as such terms, it would appear to me to be quantum indicated under existing zoning regulations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, we're referring to the garage? Is that what we're referring to? MR. PROVENCHER: Yes Sir, yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. PROVENCHER: Frankly, it is my belief that this is a strategy employed to circumvent the established rules of our community wherein the real goal is to' create a second living quarters to replace the existing garage. It is our understanding, that a homeowner is disallowed from converting any existing structure to one serving a different purpose or intent of use. In this case converting was presently an uninhabited garage for one which will allow for human habitation. With regard to the request for an exception to the statute disallowing construction to an accessory garage in quotes, "within 75 feet to an existing bulkhead, etcetera." Under Article XXIII, which you're familiar with I'm sure, the law is again quite clear as to' what is, and what is not permitted under existing rules. We will further offer, that the proposed site of the habitat, is vulnerable to flooding as we have witnessed on three' different occasions within the past eleven years. Briefly, what occurred was at a storm surge propelled the bay waters to the once existing channel and into the pond which overflowed on to those low lined areas abutting the pond. These conditions would have impacted upon the site proposed by the applicant. To allow any exception to these zoning rules would send a message, that the Zoning Laws are like the pervertible paper dragon. I would also proclaim, that the Town of Southold is engaged in selective interpretation of the statute that is meant to serve all the residence. And, it's very important to preserve our fragile legal system. I don't mean to sound like a dead beat, but, I'm 70 years old, I'm a veteran of second world war, I have 27 years in law enforcement, I've waited 50 years to purchase a home being assured at that time, that no building will be constructed on the enjoining property. That's the human conditions. I know that you're going to make a decision. I hope it's the right one. I really do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where do you live exactly, Sir? MR. PROVENCHER: Just west of Mr., Dr. Chatpar's property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: much. Alright, thank you. Thank you very PaRe 31 - Hearing ~l'ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: West on the pond. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Ma'am, excuse me for pointed to you, but, it's the only way I can. We'll be right with you Sir. MRS. TUITE: My name is Paula Tuite and I'm in the property just west on the Bay from the Chatpar's property. Just a little bit of history. My home which Mrs. Moore referred to, is nonconforming. It's similar to the Powers next door and on down the Bay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: nonconforming as to house? Nonconforming as to setback? Not MRS. TUITE: Right, but that was because those homes were placed there around 1935. And, as I understand it, the land extended out another 25 feet, but, that was lost in the 1938 hurricane and that's when the property was bulkheaded. That's kind of a history. The Christianson house which was the ori~inal owner of the Chatpar property was also set forward, but, that home burned and I think in 1960, the setback rule was 75 feet. So, thatts why the property is back from all the others on that stretch of the Peconic Bay. With regard to the changes that are proposed. My real question is, I sort of have the feeling, that in the 1996 appeal to the Board, they referred to this as a family annex and I have the feeling that as Mr. Provencher does, that this will be a means of creating another living quarters. Now, it says here, I presume their not going to be in their library without heat. So, there'll be heat, there'll be electricity and there was going to be a wet bar in the library study. So, that sought of 'indicates to me plumbing. So, it doesn't take a very great deal of imagination to see this evolving into something else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to share with both of you, that we have definite and distinct restrictions. Now, I realize that people stretch those. We have definite and distinct restrictions on the use of habitable, non-habitable space. We construe any storage building to be non-habitable and I assure you that the restrictions on this Board, every meeting we have, we place restrictions on these accessory buildings. So, I just want you to be aware of that aspect. It's got nothing to do with the setback aspect. That we're just referring to that specific thing that Mrs. Tuite is referring to at this point. I just wanted to clear that up with you. MRS. TUITE: Not to stretch this out too long, the other thing that I'm worried about a little bit, is, you know, all of us have children and grandchildren and we all love to be able to make accessory buildings that could be used in further ways, but, we really can't. Water has been a problem down there. It's soon to be resolved, we think. But, it's the end of a peninsula. It's kind of fragile environmental spot and so on. I think that this new family of habitat were placed where the existing garage is, then, they wouldn't be closer to the bulkhead than they are allowed to be. It would be possible to put this building some place else. And, is it permissible to ask a question? PaLe 32 - Hearing l'ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MRS. TUITE: I wonder if the new garage habitat is going to be 1-1/2 story over a garage which would then make it more like a two story building? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: down. We will ask that question when you sit MRS. MOORE: We can answer that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to answer it now? MRS. MOORE: Yes. In fact, well the garage is 1-1/2 stories. The actual topography of this property is that it is at a lower level than the existing house. So, while it's 1-1/2 stories visually that house story you won't be able to see, because of the elevation, the grade of the property. I mean you and I talked about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We also have definite restrictions on the height of accessory structures. MRS. MOORE: Oh, yes, yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tuite, we restrictions on the height of accessory structures. 18 feet. do have definite It cannot exceed MRS. TUITE: And then my other question was, if your removing the leeching pools which I agree is probably (inaudible, someone coughed), where are they going to go? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, we'll show you the she'll show you the survey. Mrs. Moore, would you show Mrs. Tuite where the cesspool are being and a. MRS. TUITE: Where will the new leeching pools go? MRS. MOORE: Oh, this is the old, (showing Mrs. Tuite the map). MRS. TUITE: Well, I think I'm pretty well finished with my comments. I think that the Zoning Laws are here for a purpose and there's a reason for them and I've always tried to comply with them and I would appreciate if others would too. Just one other eomment. When we sought an extension to our porch, the existing porch, we were 'not allowed to go any further to the bulkhead. The addition to the porch was laterally and it could not be any closer from the DEC's assessment of what we wanted to do. In fact, we were turned down once and then we showed them it was just going to be a lateral extension of an existing porch and it didn't come any closer to the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Pa.~e 33 - Hearing ~1 ~-anscripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. TUITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sir? state your name for the record. How do you do? Would you just MR. WINGATE: Kevin Wingate, from 50 Cedar Point Drive, the house directly on the opposite side' of Midway Inlet. I'm a new 'resident to the Town of Southold. My family and I moved here last September. I'm a licensed architect of the State of New York and I object to this structure because it impedes my view of the Bay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, that that is an area that we cannot deal with. I understand and you're certainly welcomed to voice your opinion. But, I cannot tell you., that the blocking of a water view is something that we can or cannot stop. MR. WINGATE: Right, I'm here to object on some of the structure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: just telling you that. I know, you're welcomed to do that, I'm MR. WINGATE: Upon looking at the original drawing, my reaction was the same as I'm hearing here. Why couldn't all of this be achieved by restructuring and reconfigurin~ the existing garage rather than tearing it down?, which is actually right now a ( ) an eyesore. A previous addition to the house which could be actually done in a way that would enhance the house itself without adding an additional structure. I'm only stating my view, but, also the proximity of it to my house and property is, I have to endure all of the constructions as well, and the traffic and noise it may bring into the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, you'd like to make a comment? MRS. WINGATE: Yes. thank you for that. Ma'am CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the record. Well come on up. State your name for MRS. WINGATE: My name is Eileen Wingate and we live directly across the pond and the center of my house is the kitchen. The garage is about 2:00 o'clock right now. If they were to move the garage that distance it would be at 12:00 o'clock. I found it unusual that they would say that they had beautiful views in three directions. Probably meaning, east, south and west. Neglecting looking back at the pond which is such a terrific asset to the neighborhood. We have ducks and swans and all of this fabulous flora and fauna going on, that I think that looking north, they really ought to reconsider what beauty might be and not only the Bay. I think that, our house is designed so that we have one view and that's directly south, right of what their new construction is doing. Pa~e 34 - Hearing 'xi,anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: back. Thank you. We have one more in the MRS. MOORE: I just want to clarify. pond, the side and the Bay. My three views were the MRS. WINGATE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: for the record please? Yes ma'am, could you state your name 'MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes, my name is Monica Williams. I also live in the Cedar Beach community although I'm not directly affected in the way the previous speakers and I'll be brief. My concern is the setback issue and as we talked about this case this evening, Mrs. Moore made reference and her remarks to two previous properties in our community where a variance has been granted. I'm aware of at least two others and I'm concerned with those environmental issue and also the quality of their being in our community as ( ) and I know that each situation is different and they're difficult decisions to be made, but, my husband and I felt so strongly about putting an addition on our house within the existing rules and regulations that we instructed our architect right from the ( ) to do that and we did that and we have a beautiful addition to our home. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else, yes ma'am? MRS. PROVENCHER: My nam~ is Betty Provencher and I am a little bit away as my husband described where we are. I just have one question that I think I would like clarified and that is, if the structure that theY propose to, they call a habitat to erect is going to have to be raised, the land has to be raised, because in three different incidences they said that it was a low line area. Now, is this area going to be raised l0 feet and then something a structure and a half be put on top of that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll ask the architect that. MRS. PROVENCHER: OK. MR. CUVIER: The proposed addition for the moving of the garage structure, has habitable space in it, in terms of the study library occupancy. By code, it needs to be eight feet' above the high water mark. The same where the existing house is. The grade around it would stay exactly as it is. We have no intentions of raising up the ground around the new building. It will stay exactly as it is. We would have a crawl space underneath the structure, first floor structure of the new addition. We have steps going up to it, where the current house has steps going up to it and it would be eight feet above the high water mark as required by the DEC. MRS. PROVENCHER: So, in other words, you're not going to fill in. PaLe 35 - Hearing 'l~.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no filling is what the case is. MRs. CUVIER: Absolutely not. You don't fill, gradings go up and the above floods zone with mechanical portions recognizing the potential for a ( ). MRS. PROVENCHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Moore? MRS. MOORE: Yes, I just want to remind the Board that at one point in time, it was pointed out that the sanitary system, the location of sanitary system which was relocated by the DEC, that is in the center and that is partly why the garage cannot go where it presently is. The fact is, that the garage, it has to be moved over and that's what the location that it's been, that's been located to keep the sanitary system at the appropriate setbacks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Were those setbacks approved by the Health Department? MR. CUVIER: Net yet. MRS. MOORE: Not yet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Questions, Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I would like to know for sure whether on the survey map, lot 111 and 112 and 144, are actually legally merged lots? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: They are all one lot? MRS. MOORE: Which ones? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 111, 112. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And 114. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And ll4. MEMBER HORNING: 114 is the lot that - MRS. MOORE: Oh, you're talking about the Chatpar piece itself? MEMBER HORNING: Right. The garage is right on that as if it were lot line. MRS. MOORE: The deed, the deed is one description. As a matter of fact, hold on, I think I have a copy of the deed. It is one piece of property. Page 36 - Hearing '~_anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to mention to you George that Midway Road stops at the beginning of the property even though it gives you the impression on the survey that it extends .into the property, it really becomes a driveway at that point. It's a paper, it's a paper situation. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER HORNING: Alright, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Sir? Why don't you use that mike over there and this way we can leave Mrs. Moore staying. MR. PROVENCHER: There are several things I would like to touch on that counsel touched on previously and that is with regard to her remarks. I believe I interpreted correctly, that one of the bulkheadings was put in by Dr. Chatpar. To my memory it was an existing bulkhead, there and this was simply replacing an existing bulkhead which would (inaudible) both sides of the property. And with regards to, I don't know why she mentioned the Hertz property which is on the other side of the once existed channel. But rumor or not, hearsay or not, I understand that property is up for sale and that there is no intent to build on that property. So, that sought of beginning saying things with regard to the other side of the channel. You know, there's nothing you can do with it really. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When did that channel fill in by the way? MR. PROVENCHER: They said in the fifties. )MRS. TUITE: Yes, years and years ago. There was a person there who use to, who use to dredge it out so he had use of it for a boat into the little brackish pond, but it's been filled in for years and years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. MR. PROVENCHER: There was an attempt on our part, Dr. Hubbard, the former owner of the Wingate house to open it up, but, that fell on deaf ears. You know, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's concerning you Sir? MR. PROVENCHER: What concerns me, is if I can't build a dissembling, web as well as the counselor over here, but, it seems to me that the facts should speak for themselves. That what the attempt here is, that the owner, present owner, wants to just distance themselves from the guest house. It's as simple as that. You can see, I mean you have to be blind not to see what the purpose is in moving that structure to the middle of their property. They're going to have a lattice parts going down there which will further take away from anybody's view and you know it's difficult for me not to get emotional because as I said, you know I've worked for fifty years to get this house and to have that view that I have. Pa~e 37 -. Hearing ',~anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that and we are very sympathetic to that. But, I'm just telling you that if we were to hear, if we were to hear every, please this has nothing to do, this is a generic statement. If we had to deal with everybody's view at all times, it is an extremely difficult situation to deal with. MR. PROVENCHER: I can understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Plus there is a degree of validity to a person's property rights and to that, you know, and innately with those property rights, they have the right to do things that are legal. MR. PROVENCHER: Well, you know, this is such an important now that it has come to the attention of an original newspaper and I was contacted as early as this morning, if you're listening Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am Sir. I'm not taking light of this I assure you I am trying to understand. MR. PROVENCHER: I don't think you are either I'm just trying to make a point. What I'm saying is, that there is a reeent newspaper which is doing a studying on just what is going on in this room and it's going to be published in July, I believe, which brings to my mind the faet that it seems to be of great importance, not only at the east end, but even as far west of Centerport, where the same problem exists. I appreciate (coughing) I just hope you come to a reasonable conclusion. Thank you very mueh. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Sure, Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: I just want to clarify and state clearly for Mr. Provencher as well as for the Board, the bulkhead that runs from, and there is a survey there 'that I've submitted, it runs from Midway ~nlet to the north point of the bulkhead that is the closest point to the octagonal design. That strip was built by Chatpar, by the owners. The other renovations or other improvements to the bulkhead, would have been restoration or replacement of existing bulkhead. So, that strip there, there's a survey that shows the cut, and that is in fact, the most, the closest setback. It's the bulkhead but there is also, the exact measurement that I don't have, I'll have to measure it out. About 20 feet, 25 feet of beach. So, the water line is about 25 feet in addition to the 39 feet to the bulkhead. MR. CUVIER: This is a very difficult piece of property and I love ( ) as an architect, but this certainly could be no consideration to a test. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's basically why ~ asked you the question in reference to the DEC time on this, alright. I have to tell you also, that I went on the worst possible day to view this piece of property. And, this piece of property looked fantastic on the worst day. I barely blew out of the car, almost slipped on the Pa~e 38 - Hearing 'x~-anseripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals front lawn, and then, as I approached the garage, this torrential rain storm came down and was positively soaked. However, it still looked great. Excuse me, go ahead. MR. CUVIER: The drainage is pretty good I guess on the side. The hardships of this property, I think are obvious to this Board. To the north, we have Midway Road, ( ?) that comes into our property and cuts back on our front yard. We have midway inlets who are north and east that also impose setback problems relative to waters. We have Little Peconic Bay to our south that does the same. We have an inward beach that occurs which makes us even closer to the original house. No matter what we do, no matter where we put an addition, we're going to have a potential problem with the ordinance. It was my intent, as the architect to this project to try to enhance the community, to satisfy my client's needs and to place this addition in such a manner, that it would be unobtrusive and minimize any impact of anyone's views as I did consider the views to the north and to the north west and the trellis that connects and makes the buildings integral in terms of a single structure, not two structures, not an accessory structure, was a very light trellis, that would permit the view through, so as you approach from midway into the driveway, into a circular driveway, you can see right underneath the trellis and out to the water. That was the intent of this design. Replace the addition to the house on the south east corner of the main house which minimizes impact to anyone's view, to the west, to the north west, or the north. So believe me when I tell you, we made every attempt we could to minimize and mitigate the problems with this piece of property, and that's the hardship of the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're up there, I was going to call you up again. My concern is the actual placement, of the garage. I'm not going to refer to it as a habitat because we don't refer to it. It's an accessory garage. Why the placement, you know, your attorney refers to this particular placement because of the placement of the cesspool system? Certainly, this system can be placed in other specific areas. MRS. MOORE: It has to maintain 150 foot separation from the neighbor's well. So, I'm not sure that there are - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of - (Unknown speaker) We have our own well we have to deal with. MRS. MOORE: And our own. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hold the question. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, in the back. Hold your question. Pa~e 39 - Hearing '~i~'anscripts June. 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CUVIER: If the well were to go and public water were to be brought in, it would be possible to move the addition to the west, OK. Possibly, say 9 feet, maybe 75 feet west from Midway in to make it conform. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. The reason why I asked that questions was, certainly there is significance and there are established setbacks on the houses that Mrs. Moore had mentioned, OK, and uniquely Mrs. Tuite mentioned, that that's what the placement of house is. This Board is not really that, and I'm speaking for the Board, I'm very simply speaking for myself. We are not that sincere in reference to our presentation. I'm not that sincere in reference to the placement of such restructures, that close, OK. In other words, 75 feet really is in an area where it should be 75 feet. I mean that's my suggestion. This is not a dwelt. You can call it whatever you want. Some people refer to as a putting words into you mouth. Some people refer to it as a boathouse. Some people refer to it as a shower house. Some people refer to it as an area to a just hang out in sort of speak, OK, and I just don't have that feeling that I have for the dwelling aspect. So I understand that in some respect it's important. I personally don't care if it ever had a bathroom in it either to be honest with you. But, that is your purview as an architect to place in your applicants' plans at their request of course. But, I just, I don't see the placement of it 'in that particular location. I do see the trellis. I see that that adds a vocal point. Ideal of balance is one that concerns me and that's the reason why I asked you that symmetrically in the beginning when you first stood up regarding the house. But, I don't specifically see it in reference to the garage. I mean, the trellis can be skewed a little more you know, to the distance of where the existing garage can be. I'm just mentioning that not because I'm saying that I'm denying it at this juncture. I'm saying that that's a concern that we have mainly for dwellings and this is certainly not a dwelling. MRS. MOORE: No, I think that there are some misnomer there. It is not an accessory structure. It is part of the ( ) structure and that's why it's connected by the trellis. It used to be a more substantial connection, vine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We unfortunately don't buy that. please, this has nothing to- And MRS. MOORE: Well no, whatever the Building Department buys. mean I used your interpretations for them and they you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are either going to interpret this in its ( ), not necessarily in this application or we are going to go to the Code Committee through the Town Board and we are finally going to clear this issue up. What is allowed and what is not allowed in accessory structures, OK. But, I can tell you as I sit, it can be put on in any specific manner if is not attached to the house. It is not a habitable portion of the dwelling. Pa~e 40 - Hearing ~i~anscripts Jun.e 11, 1998 - Board' of Appeals MRS. MOORE: It is a very important aspect of this coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, there's no question about it. MRS. MOORE: out there - Because Dr. Chatpar has a, his intention is to hang CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's just what I said. MRS. MOORE: And to relax there so that the views from that structure are as important as the views from the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, sure. MRS. MOORE: And the setbacks as a matter of law, are significant setbacks. There 66 feet, 54 feet from the closest bulkhead. Right now where it's presently proposed, is much greater than all the other structures that are in this community and that's the legal standard that I worry about and that's why I do all of my homework to find out exactly where everybody is so that it's in character with the area. If we were asking for 30 feet and everybody else was at 75, you'd have a great, You'd have a lot to say about that, but, it's the opposite here. And, I don't want you to lightly to decide - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm lightly - MRS. MOORE: So, 'that's - To decide that the garage shouldn't be in this area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not lightly deciding it. I'm just telling you that there is different weight that is used in determining an accessory structure. I will just briefly go through' the strick that I usually go through in dealing with this. Number 1, if a person, a garage is a structure that normally houses cars. If a person chooses to use those cars for themselves and for their hobbies, then, they have the right to use them in their garage. If this gentleman and this lady choose not to that, but choose to use it in a different manner, I don't think that we are going to legislate that they can't use it in that manner. In this case, this gentleman's hobby could be the collecting of stamps and that is what he would do, or she would do, or lady, excuse me, they would do in their habitat area sort of speak. We are not certainly going to legislate that out. We are not concerned necessarily as long as you understand that I am construing this as an accessory structure. And thai I think that is the purpose of the affidavit that you placed in here. MRS. MOORE: To say that it was, we're not going to use as a sleeping quarters, or, a separate dwelling which I think was the main concern that it was going to be a annexed rental unit which there is not an intended at all for that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I walked over to the existing dwelling, the existing accessory structure and just before the rain commenced. Page 41 - Hearing ',.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals In fact, it appears to be a potting shed to me at this point. That's what it appears to be. So, I'm just telling you, I'm just telling you that, you know-, what is the difference between a garage, a potting shed, or a library if it is heated, or unheated, because some people's garages are heated. I'm just saying that it carries a different weight than a dwelling does. MRS. MOORE: No, I understand. You're more inclined as a Board to move it around, OK. I understand that and if your considering moving it around, just as, I've been here many a times when I've asked you, please we will talk with you, but, do not impose some kind of arbitrary' setback that then eliminates the whole architectural integrity and the balance of the design and the use of this property, because it is 66 feet of sideyard that it presently has, and_ that's greater than most rear yards. So, it's the proposed location is actually very reasonable and if the Board has some wish to move it around, please discuss it with us, don't come up with it arbitrarily. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's a preliminary hearing, you know, no-one has done any homework on this sort of speak. MRS. MOORE: No, but, I understand that- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Other than the looking at it, in the looking at all the files you have given us and the data you've given us tonight. MR.S MOORE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say, as you know, it takes three votes in reference to unanimity. So, I don't know. Sir? MR. CUVIER: For the record, we accept your identification of the structure as accessory. But, for the record, it is physically attached to the main house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: also. No, we have two interpretations on that MR. CUVIER: In our interpretation we feel it is physically attached to the main house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you to be aware. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: By a trellis. MR. CUVIER: It's substantial to move over, but again, we're trying to keep the structure light and airy as well. Light and views through it as much as possible. That was the intent. As far as the balance issue of this project very early at the hearing was concerned, if you look at the setback from Midway Inlet to the north, and Little Peconic Bay to the south, that is pretty much of a balance condition in terms of what we put the accessory structure. Pa~e 42 - Hearing 'i.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals To the west of Midway Inlet to the east property line, or 66 feet, you can go back a little bit further. But the reason for placing it where we did, was again, two years of negotiations with DEC to satisfy where was the best location for sanitary system, which the owner is willing to relocate at great expense from where it is currently with ( ) environmental ( ) but would cause it to put it and have it far enough away from the well pump which is to the wes~ and that's the reason for the balance that we discussed earlier. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora will be right back. Oh, George had a question. OK, George? MEMBER HORNING: I'm wondering if you could explain to us how much consideration you did have for making an attached garage rather than what the Building Department calls' an accessory garage? MR. CUVIER: Yes, absolutely, I can answer that question. The east facade of the existing house has a kitchen with the window looking to the east and to put the garage structure physically to the north east corner of the house, would crowd the entire house in terms of main entrance on the front facade. You do not slide it down along the east bulk because you would block the a, there's a door there as well as a window that comes off the kitchen and it was not the placement for that particular structure. MEMBER HORNING: I mean certainly some renovations are always in order once you won't make additions and what not. MR. CUVIER: The kitchen needs to be in that location from a point your serving, the dining room is to the west and the dinette to the south and would completely block the door which is an exit from the house as well as the (inaudible - other voices in room). The kitchen sink literally looking out at that, that's (inaudible) interior room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only last comment is, I have never see'~ a septic tank for a garage and that's just, I find that somewhat uninteresting. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. CUVIER: That's because there was a bathroom in the a ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I do have a question in the back from a nice lady but I, what would you want to do first? Do you want to take her question or do you want to comment now? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you can take her question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: there. Thank you. OK, we'll take your question over Pa~e 43 - Hearing k ~-anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. WINGATE: Just a quick comment about the well head and the location of the septic system. We will be getting town water hopefully by Labor Day Weekend. There's no date set. In fact today, at the entrance to our private road we were delivered all the piping that's required to get into the neighborhood and to set up. And so, I don't see where the well and the septic system can all be managed better. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dinizio. Thank you. OK, question from Mr. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd just like to ask the architect where in our laws it says, that you can attach accessory garage and a two story house with a trellis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think he's saying within our code. I think he's saying, I'm not answering the question for him, but, he's saying, go ahead Jim, give it to him. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just, I'm, you know, I hear the thing going back forth here about this structure that you want to build and maybe Mrs. Moore has to answer this question, but, you know, how do you say that they're joined when it's just a few pieces of wood and some plantings? How does that fit into our code? How does this garage, accessory garage become part of this house? If you can do that for ( ), I'll certainly - MRS. MOORE: I'm not sure if I can find it immediately, but a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: writing. It's alright, you can give it to us in MR. CUVIER: It's a matter of what define structure is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes, no problem. MR. CUVIER: If the well were to be replaced with public water, then certainly we'd be willing to hold this structure 9 feet further to the west and make it comply with the east setback 75 feet ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I just wanted to know what the existing setback of the house was? MRS. MOORE: The existing setback of - MEMBER TORTORA: You had said that earlier. MRS. MOORE: Yes, 52 feet I believe it was. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's 52 to 39 at the closest? Pa~ge 44 - Hearing TranscriPts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CUVIER: I think that was the exact amount you came up. 52 feet even from the north west corner of the bulkhead that's by the sand beach to the north east, to the south' east corner of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: It's closest point? MR. CUVIER: 52 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we thank you very much for all of your comments. We thank everyone for their comments and we appreciate the courtesy that you've given each other and I will make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything you want to send us, please send us Pat, before the 22nd of June. MRS. MOORE: I'm not sure if it's relevant to this application as far as whether it's accessory or an accessory structure of principal dwelling. I'm happy to give it to you but, I'm not sure that the setback is any different. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're not interested in the setback. What we're interested in is, what constitutes, OK, an addition to a house. We can tell you, that we have definite and distinct rules under that. That we have basically done interpretations on. MRS. MOORE: OK, but, I understand that. But, it's not really relevant to this particular application. That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it is. MRS. MOORE: looking at, - I'd be happy to send it to you. But, what we're CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well it is if you are considering the garage as more than a garage. MRS. MOORE: I see what you mean. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, you know what I'm saying? See, I mean, that's why when we diseuss these things, we're saying, that even though the Notice of Disapproval focuses on this, as you know, it really encompasses everything. MRS. MOORE: usually - Well I know you're bringing a lot of more stuff than CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well there were a lot of issues raised tonight. Also I think the Chatpars have to understand, that this is an area that has existed since the thirties. I don't know the vintage of this house. My opinion would be this house is probably mid forties. Pa~e 45 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Possibly. MRS. ?: Actually in 1960 it was rebuilt from the fire. MRS. MOORE: From the fire. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so therefore everything has existed that way and so, there is definitely a concern and you know, the neighbors. I do, I want to comment on everybody on their courtesy, it really is very nice. Thank you. MRS. TUITE: I have ne further question. Was that lot 111 and 112 which is now the entire property of the Chatpars, I have a feeling the history of that 111 was unbuildable, because it was too close to the water in all areas. So, if the garage, whatever goes there, it's going to be built on 111. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. TUITE: Now maybe this is all now evolved into 144, I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It has, it really has and of course the DEC would be the one that would have the lead agency in reference to the placement, OK, meaning, is there an endangered species? Are there you know, ( ) are there specific reasons why nothing should be constructed, or should there be a disrupting of that particular one. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Taking a 5 minute break) I offer that as a resolution. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Anybody what to second that? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If there's any change or this is elongated, we will come back and tell you that. We were to meet with the Town Attorney for five minutes on attorney, client privilege and if that changes we'll be back to tell you. All in favor? Ladies and gentlemen I need a motion to convene. MEMBERS: So moved. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pa~e 47 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:11 P.M. - Appl. No. 4575 - FRANK GASTON This is a variance request under Zoning Code Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based upon the Building Inspector's August 20, 1997 Notice of Disapproval (updated 5/7/98), disapproving a building permit application for a deck addition to dwelling with a setback at less than 75 feet from a bulkhead, concrete wall or similar structure at 1875 Bayview Avenue, Greenport, N.Y.; 1000-52-5-5. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey dated July 15, 1997 indicating the approximate placement of the house as it had existed. The applicant is proposing a 12 x 25 foot deck, open deck, on the rear of the house which is towards Arshamomoque Pond. It is approximate 69 feet plus or minus feet from the concrete retaining wall and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Would you state your name for the record? MR. PATRONE: deck. Sam Patrone. I'm the carpenter for the proposed CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: other than it's open? What would you like to tell us about it, MR. PATRONE: The actual footage from the concrete retaining wall to the house is approximately 81 feet. The 71 foot that's listed on the survey is from the top of the embankment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, really. MR. PATRONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: it's 81. I think that exempts' it under the code if MEMBER COLLINS: No, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If it's 81. MR. PATRONE: Because if it's 12 feet, it puts us down to 69 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I see, I'm sorry, from the house you're saying? OK, I apologize. MR. PATRONE: We're looking to try to obtain from the customer, he's presently now on three generations of family that usually uses this as a vocal point. There are some people that up in Maine and there's a lot of little kids running around other than Mr. Gaston and they'd like to have an area where they can sit outside and not have to worrying about sinking into the lawn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Sam, the elevation here is going to be even with the first floor area, basically? Page 48 - Hearing Transcripts June ]1, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PATRONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: considerably? So there'll be a couple of steps down MR. PATRONE: There should be three steps down. There's presently a stoop there that you see ( ), is just a concrete walk and then there's just interior on the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are the steps going to be forward toward the water or off to the side? MR. PATRONE: Actually part of the eorner of the deck, it's not actually shown there, but it's going to let you walk up to the service area of the deek included with the stairwell. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only reason why we said that because it exceeds 30 sq. ft. It's part of the setback area and that's what we're concerned about, alright. Quickly dealing with the and it will remain open, it's not part of the living area, is that correct? MR. PATRONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no further hands and no comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Seeond. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pa~e 49 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:15 Appl. No. 4571 - WALTER MILLIS This is a variance request under Zoning Code Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, based upon the Building Inspector's April 14, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit Application to remove existing shed and replace with accessory garage, which will exceed allowable lot coverage of 20% at 1800 (a/k/a 1875) Village Lane, Orient, N.Y.; 1000-24-2-22. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey, original date was October, 1996 and the most recent date is March 17, 1997. The lot coverage is the house 1847, the shed is 64. At the present situation we are at 1911 or 23% and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Are you the applicant Sir? MR. MILLIS: I am indeed. My name is Walter Millis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: like to tell us about the ( build the proposed Nice to meet you Sir. What would you ) of lot coverage if you build the or MR. MILLIS: Above what? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Exceeding the lot coverage. MR. MILLIS: Oh, if we build this proposed garage which we would propose it, 16 x 20 feet, that would increase the lot coverage of the existing 23% to 26%. I, did the math several times, so I'm fairly sure I know what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what types of utilities would the garage have other than electricity? MR. MILLIS: None. It would be 'a straight forward garage with a work bench in it. It's sufficiently large so that this house has screens and storm windows that you have take off and put away. So we want to get that stuff stored. Small attic so I can get the boat gear put away in the winter time and stuff like that and have a car which I hope there's room for when I get through storing junk in the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the approximate, I know you gave us a layout or plans to the garage, but, what is the approximate height if you were talking - MR. MILLIS: 14" 9". CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 14' 9"? MR. MILLIS: It shows on the plan. Page 50 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, good, OK. Homing, any questions of this gentleman? We'll start with Mr. MEMBER HORNING, No, not now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tertora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: There is a stockade fence at the rear of the property that shows on the survey and there's a building beyond that stockade fence of tan brown cedar shingle. What is that building? Is that a house? MR. MILLIS: It's some .kind of a guest house as far as I know. MEMBER COLLINS: It's part of the run of houses that run along the private lane along the harbor. MR. MILLIS: Yes, it's the one behind the house that's occupied by William Bahrenburg. MEMBER COLLINS: So it's, it's - MR. MILLIS: I think it was originally put up to house some children, one of the Bahrenburgs. But, I'm not 100% sure of that. MEMBER COLLINS: And then going south from your property, there's also some kind of a building on the (interruption) going south from your property, there's a building quite close to Your property line on the next parcel. MR. MILLIS: Yes, that's a garage owned by Floyd King who owns the house right beside it, which is rented. MEMBER COLLINS: The point of my question was simply to get on the record the fact, that there are buildings'very close to your property line and near. Your garage will have adequate setbacks but, my point simply is, that it's a densely built neighborhood and - MR. MILLIS: That little corner of it, it is, it almost seems like it's a garage convention down there. MEMBER COLLINS: Have you done, did you do any homework about the kinds of lot coverage percentage that you find in your part of Village Lane, you know, how much? What kind of lot coverage in percent terms other folks have? MR. MILLIS: I don't know that. MEMBER COLLINS: Your house doesn't have a cellar I gather? Pa~ge 51 - Hearing ~l~anseripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. MILLIS:~ Not really, no. Not a usable cellar. There~ is a space about that high under the front of it. But it's not - MEMBER COLLINS: But, it's not a place where you'd care to store the things you want to store in your garage attic? MR. MILLIS: You can't ( ). MEMBER COLLINS: One other question. You of course did extensive renovations to the house which is absolutely beautiful. MR. MILLIS: Thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: Did that change the house footprint lot coverage? MR. MILLIS: No. I'll correct myself. by one square foot. It changed the lot coverage MEMBER COLLINS: A careful man. MR. MILLIS: No, I would ( ). MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you proposing the rear of the garage to be approximately 3-1/2 feet from the property line? Is that what it says? MR. MILLIS: It's a bit further than that. Actually when I actually got out and measured it out, a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you say about four? MR. MILLIS: It's more like six. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that's wonderful. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: You got my six feet, that's all I need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? We thank you Sir, and we hope to have a decision, oh, yes, we'll take your green card. MR. MILLIS: I also owe you an explanation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's that? MR. MILLIS: I have some green cards. That you need an explanation for. The property immediately beside, immediately in the back of mine, is owned by William S. Bahrenburg. I sent him notification at the address on the assessment roll and so on, and it turns out he's touring in Europe, and he went away before, and I'm waiting for him to come back yet, and so he hasn't picked up his Pa~e 52 - Hearing ~ ~anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals mail, so I don't have it on me. In the course of working this out, I discovered that William S. Bahrenburg is living in the house. So, I sent him a notification in the house. That turns out to be the father, not the owner. So, that William S. Bahrenburg, is the gentleman who is living in the house but it's not the official owner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. MILLIS: Also, Mr. Chan, one of the two houses directly across the street from me that I notified (changing of tape). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You might want to restate that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He's aware of your application. MR. MILLIS: Mr. Chan, one of the two property owners across the street from me, is aware of what we want to do with the garage and told us he has no objection. I realize that but I just wanted - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you again. Have a lovely evening. Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion closing the hearing recessing it until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will not be making a decision tonight. We will make a decision in the near future. MR. MILLIS: I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Pa~e 53 - Hearing Fl~-anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:26 P.M.-CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The application CIELATKA is postponed. Is there anybody here in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this, or speak against this? I make a resolution to recess it with no date. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually we have to readvertise it if we don't reopen it, if you don't open the hearing, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I'll open the hearing. I won't read the legal notice, but, I'll open the hearing and recess it without a date. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Does anybody want to second that motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll change that Motion ladies and gentlemen to recessing it until the next regularly scheduled meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: July 23rd? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you James. MEMBER DINIZIO: Your weleome. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. OK, Second to that motion? Pa~e 54 - Hearing ~_'ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:26 P.M. - Appl. No. 4576 - CHARLES D. SNYDER This is a variance request under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4, based upon the Building Inspector's May 8, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application for an accessory garage due to its proposed location in an area other than the rear yard at 704 Wiggins Lane, Greenport, 1000-35-4-28.24 (formerly CTM Lot 19). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know, maybe I'm reading off of the other thing, I should be reading, off of the Agenda and that is the reason why I said I was out of order and I was not out of order. We'll read the legal notice now. .I have a copy of the survey indicating the house presently 1-1/2 story house with a carport. The applicant is proposing a one car garage, approximately 34 feet (tape inaudible) 58 feet from the bulkhead, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Now that we've got to the right one, we're on sink, or in sink I should say. What would you like to tell us? MR. SNYDER: The only thing that I'd like to tell you, is that I would like an enclosed garage within the building to have my vehicle in the, that's it. One car garage and you have a drawing of the plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. significantly under the lot coverage? It appears that you are MR. SNYDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'Alright, and 'that's what you have done for us? MR. SNYDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: setback? Alright, so that the issue in question is, MR. SNYDER: 'No, well, - MEMBER COLLINS: It's a, the disapproval is the rear yard. MR. SNYDER: I think the disapproval is, you cannot build - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, you're talking about side yard? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The garage is in the side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The garage is in the side yard. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It will be. Pa~e 55 - Hearing ~'ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you to say that, that's alt. I wasn't baiting you in any way. I assure you, alright. Again the same question was asked in the prior garage hearing. Any utility other than electricity? MR. SNYDER: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Starting with Mr. Homing, any questions of Mr. Snyder? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any. It's also I guess 48 feet, or 50. Is it 48 or is it 50 feet from the bulkhead? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER TORTORA: 50? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, 50. And is there like a carport there now? Yes. MR. SNYDER: There is a carport. There's a sketch. I think you have a sketch of it that indicates the carport area. There's a ( ) the front of the house next to it. MEMBER TORTORA: Alright, that's the only questions I had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there, is there anybody in the audience like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. Somebody like to second it? MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pet~e 56 - Hearing riranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:31 P.M. - Appl. No. 4577 - CARL AND LYNNE FRITSCHER This is a variance request under Article XXIV, Section 100-244-B, based upon the Building Inspector's May 8, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application for a new single-family dwelling with proposed front yard setbacks of less than 50 feet. Location of Property: 135 Pine Tree Court, and along Pine Court Extension (a/k/a Private Roads), Cutchogue, N.Y.; 1000-98-1-7.15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight Sir? MR. FRITSCHER: Fine Sir, yourself? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: your name for the record. Fine, thank you. Could you just state MR. FRITSCHER: Yes, I'm Carl Fritscher. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. FRITSCHER: Well, in laying out our foundation plans here, I was totally unaware that we had two front yards. Consequently we made a mistake and now we have a situation where we're a bit a, not quite the 50 feet setback that we need. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We will make every attempt to assist you on that. Sometimes these situations occur. MR. FRITSCHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just stay there and we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I don't know whether I want to, it's not really a question, it's a comment. Let me make the comment. The Building Permit application itself, and the drawings of the house that were submitted with the Building Permit application, both show the house at about 64 feet wide, which is indeed how the foundation has been poured and that provided the facts if one had subtracted for the permit process to have seen that the house was, that the setbacks were going to be insufficient and I think therefore, that I just want to say, that I think the relevant facts were disclosed in an appropriate way, and they weren't acted on, and I don't think that should redown to make life difficult for the Fritschers. Furthermore, I presume that my colleagues have also gone through that road to get to the property, and know that the two so-called streets, that constitute the other two front yards, are right-of-ways the dead end, the back end of the Fritschers' property, and they don't go anywhere. Page 57 - Hearing %ranseripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? They only serve one or two houSes. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm familiar with the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNIONG: I'm ali set. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, great. While you're standing there, anybody in the audience like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? 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. Pa~e 58 - Hearing %ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:35 P.M. - Appl. No. 4578 - STEPHEN AND ANGELA PUTZI This is a variance request under Article III-A, Seetion 100-30A.4, based upon the Building Inspector's April 28, 1998, Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application to construct addition to an existing accessory garage in a front yard location at 2575 (a/k/a 2500) Lighthouse Road and Soundview Avenue, Southold, N.Y.; i000-50-3-8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey indicating an existing two story, two story framed residence, in highlighted area we are, the applicant is. proposing a 20 x 34 garage in the front yard area and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone here that would like to be heard on this application? How are you tonight Sir? MR. PUTZI: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? Why do you want it in the front yard? MR. PUTZI: I would like to get a permit to construct this utility building 20 x 30 size. Presently I have a garage and I would like to attach that building to CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Alright. The height of the garage is approximately how high you're proposing? MR. PUTZI: It would be less than 18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Less than 187 MR. PUTZI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER D!NIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Sir, you already have a two car garage and actually on the survey also a earport up next to the house. This is an enormous addition. It doubles the size of the garage building. What's it for? MR. PUTZI: Basically, well the house sits on three acres, OK. And, basically what I would be using, the addition for some farm equipment, not the farm equipment, but, the lawn mower ( ), lawn mower propel, lawn mower, rototiller, lawn furniture, in the winter which we have scattered throughout the property, storm windows and on and on. P~a~e 59 - Hearing '~'anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: really? So, you contemplate it as a storage building MR. PUTZI: Basically. MEMBER COLLINS: A garage is a garage and this is for storage. MR. PUTZI: The garage is for the two cars you know, like to store and the other section is basically for the storage. MEMBER COLLINS: Is it going to have an upstairs? MR. PUTZI: There is no upstairs. MEMBER COLLINS: And I'll ask the question the Chairman always asks, which is, what utilities that will be in the building? Electricity, obviously. MR. PUTZI: That's about it. MEMBER COLLINS: The Chairman asked when you first stepped up to the podium if you could address the question, of why put this in the front yard which is why your here looking for a variance because accessory buildings are suppose to go other than the front yard? Could you just say a little bit about the considerations on where this thing can be built? MR. PUTZI: Yes, I took the matter and investigated and I found out that the sewage pipes are to the north off the garage where what you're talking about, and in order to place the foundation we would have to start relocating the sewage pipes and so on. Also, there's an electrical power underground just coming in through that section into the garage. MEMBER COLLINS: I guess that's it, thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going the other way Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I apologize to the public. I don't know if it was the air conditioning, I apologize sincerely. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: One. Again Sir, are you telling us, that this proposed addition to the garage is situated the way you have it because you could not put it on the other side? MR. PUTZI: Correct. Well, I could, but, I would have to relocate the sewage septic system. Pa~e 60 - Hearing %ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Do you have a survey map of your septic area? MR. PUTZI: No, I do not. That was installed by the previous owner, you know each one ( ) running from the septic system to the overflow tank which is located in back of the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just for the record, there is a significant clay problem in this area George and I am aware of the property and I know that some of them. There is a significant problem I assure you in this area. I should have pointed that to you prior to the hearing but I'll make it on the reeord, alright. MEMBER HORNING: What goes on then? I'm not sure what direction I'm looking at here, but to the right hand, looking at the house from Soundview Avenue to the right hand side of the house - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Come over here and look at it right here. MEMBER TORTORA: There's a pond here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Avenue. The pond is truncated by Soundview MEMBER DINIZIO: It's pretty wet in the back. MEMBER TORTORA: See this is all pond. lilly pond there. That's another story. It use to be a beautiful MEMBER HORNING: This is wetlands in here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: what's drawn in here. Yes, it quite significantly more than MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second.. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. P,a~e 61 - Hearing 'xcanscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:43 P.M. - Appl. No. 4580 - ALBERT AND JANICE RATTI This is a variance request under Article XXIV, Section 100-242 (100-244), based upon the Building Inspector's May 19, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit application to reconstruct dwelling which was damaged more than 50% by fire, and proposed to be rebuilt with an insufficient front yard setback. Location of Property: 420 Lesters Road, Mattituck; 1000-114-7-8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey indicating and reading from the disapproval setbacks of approximately 36., 36 feet 4 inches and 35 feet 9 inches from the existing private right-of-way and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you Sir? MR. RATTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. RATTI: My house was destroyed by fire last year and we'd like to rebuild it. The reason why I'm asking for the 30 inch extension is that the porch was always a little too small for us when we purchased it 28 years ago. We also had to have it moved at that time and I moved it back supposedly it was suppose to be 37 feet. The setback should have been 35 to leave room to add on to the porch. We always wanted to. Our family has grown. My grandson (coughing), my daughter is married, so, it's getting kind a little crowded there. We're going to build it exactly the same porch size and everything else is going to be exactly the same. The neighbors on the front, we a, I'm also, it's on a private road, owners in common on the road. The neighbor across the street is even closer than I am, around 19 feet to the road, two neighbors, Mr. Callis and Mr. Fox, and I just, you know. We had a new foundation built on it when we moved it, so I rather keep it on that foundation rather than do a lot of extra work, and masonry work and structural work in order to comply with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you elongating the existing foundation 'or your just cantilevering it to add the 30 inches around? MR. RATTI: No, I'm going to put pilings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you're going to put pilings on. MR. RATTI: Yeah, because the steps got all destroyed through the fire and that has to be torn down, and I'm going to put pilings on and then make the frame and then later enclose it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Any questions of Mr. Ratti? We'll start with Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: Not right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: (Didn't hear any response, must have said no) Pa~e 62 - Hearing Transcripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there, anybody in the audience like to speak in favor? Anybody against? Hearing no further comment, we hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. It is not going to be tonight and we appreciate your coming in. I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution'. Pa~e 63 - Hearing Transcripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:46 P.M. - Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN ROSEN (OWNER: Broker & ano.) Location of Property: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-141-3-44. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This was hearing and was originally opened on April 16, 1998. I think we will ask Mr. Cuddy if there's anything he would like to add. We did receive a letter from you today I believe - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yesterday, pardon me and I only briefly read a portion of it. I am aware that some of it had to do with some of the testimony that was taken at the last hearing, that you were answering questions to it. MR. CUDDY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Charles CUddy. I appear on behalf of the applicant, Martin Rosen. Yesterday, we did deliver a letter which simply was an answer or a response to some of the questions that had been raised by some audience at the last hearing. I have some maps for you. Not that they are significantly different, but I think that these are as precise as we ean get to show you how far back we're going to be and also the location of the tower. I'll hand these up to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. CURRY: Essentially what that does, is just confirm to you that we're inside the rear lot line by three feet, and that was the question that came up before and that shows (rattling of paper). There was a further question as to the base of the tower. The base is precisely 8.7 x 8.7 x 8.7, and that's 'all I've done., so there's nothing else that you wanted. I had, if I may, I would like to address some of the - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, I have trouble hearing because there's a lot of rattling up here and with the mike. Sorry, you didn't know that. Go ahead, I can hear you better now.. MR. CUDDY: I would like to address some of the concerns I believe that were voiced at the last meeting. As you know we sought and we do seek now, an interpretation indicating that we are outside the 1996 Telecommunications Act. We very much believe that's true. I left with you a copy last time of that Act. I read the Act, I said to you I do not seek to ( ) it. I prepared a Memorandum. Indicate by definition why I thought we were outside that Act. I subsequently getting back to something that Ms. Collins asked me last time, spoke to Mr. Fish in the Building Department, and indicated that was the interpretation that we were seeking because he had not had the opportunity to respond to that. He indicated within the past few days, that he thought that had merit to it, not necessarily saying he approved of it, but, it had merit and the Board should certainly consider the fact that we were outside that Act. In order to perhaps move you to that position, we have contacted various people in the FCC. I spoke personally to a man P.a~e 64 - Hearing '* ,.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals by the name of John Conway who runs the Commercial Wireless Division in Washington, D.C. Mr. Conway would be pleased to hear from anyone of you. I can give you his phone num~ber.' He's indicated to me, that we are outside the 1996 Act. My client contacted one of the FCC attorneys. A man by the name of Brad Deutsch. He sent him a fax. I will 'give you a copy of it in just a moment, saying to him, that in effect, yes we are this type of facility that we have, the radio tower facility that we're talking about, is not within, and his license was not within the 1996 Act. That is the point that we were making the last time. I reiterate that point this time. I very much believe, that our tower is analogy to, that we can make a very good analog~y to a taxicab tower. We talked about that last time, but the more we thought about it, the better it gets. If somebody came into this room and asked you, to have the Southold taxicab operation and they had a 20 foot tower and they wanted to expand it to probably a 40 or 50 foot tower, I don't think under any circumstances, you'd feel that was covered by this Act. That's us, we have that same kind of transmission. We have the same kind of tower. This is not a cellular tower. Sometimes under the law, similar things get treated differently. We're saying to you, that our similarity tower to tower isn't enough. It has to be treated differently. In Southold if you have a storage house, that has wine in it, it's treated differently than a storage house. It has furniture in it, they both may look identical, they're treated differently under the law. If you have a bottle that has root beer in it and a bottle that has beer in it, it's unlabeled, it looks the same, but it's treated differently when it gets labeled. That's exactly what we have. We have a different situation. The tower may look like a tower, but it's not in this particular Act and it's not covered under this division in the code. That does not mean that we're exempt from regulations. We still have to go before the Planning Board. We would have to get approval from the Planning Board. But, what I am saying, is that as far as that particular section goes, and the way the Town Code is written, that it does not apply to us. In the alternative, we had also asked for other relief, but, I belief that's the chief position that we want to impress upon the Board. We have people here again who are prepared to answer questions. We are ready to answer any questions that anybody may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had a discussion with the Building Inspector yesterday regarding the original Notice of Disapproval which was dated in February of 1998. I asked the Building Inspector who wrote that, why he was referring to the tower as a primary structure and what of course is evolved, is the issue of the office and the issue of, you know, at least one truck being parked in 'the yard and so on and so forth. So I kind of eluded to the Building Inspector, that I would be asking you to update that Notice of Disapproval by changing your Building Permit to include that. I realize that's putting the cart before the horse and I know that your concern is what, you know, what the interpretation is. I can tell you that we are working diligently on the interpretation. I am not positive if we have come to a realization of that at this point. I am not speaking for my other four colleagues here, but, I am telling Pa~e 65 - Hearing ~l'ranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals you that's where we are at this juncture. I also am aware that part 3 of the long Environmental Assessment .form which is a part of part 3, is in the process of being developed or pleaded, at which juncture I don't think I would close the hearing anyway until we actually receive that to see if there was anything that we were going to deal with on that basis. So, that's where we are and that's where I am I should say. I have to tell you, that this happened yesterday and we have been dealing with it, and as you know our schedule has been innately very, very busy, and I apologize for not getting back to you by letter. If that was the case, I would of done that, but I knew the hearing was occurring tonight, and so I mean there was no sense to reduce it to writing at this point. I don't have any specific questions of Mr. Ocean or of the actual antenna engineer at this point, but, let's see if anybody else does. MR. CUDDY: Maybe I can just add one further thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. CUDDY: Based upon your conversation with the Building Inspector, I would hope, that the Board would reconsider the decision that May, 1992, which is number 4023, which is the Metro 1 decision. Metro 1 decision parallels our application. There's a business site. There's a building, a concrete ( ) building, Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The tower that was granted was over 100 feet in height. The tower was granted as an accessory use. Essentially that parallels the application we're making to this Board. That was before the Telecommunications Act was adopted into the ( ) facility to cover the act. That's the same treatment I hope that this particular applicant would receive. That is, that you found that the building was an office building, you found that the tower was an accessory tower, which was considerably higher than what was proposed. So, I would hope that in dealing with that and discussing with Mr. Fish, whether we're an accessory use or not is the same to me. It appeared that's the type of thing that we had. I would hope that the Board will seriously consider that and not be delaying the decision or closing the hearing. Under these circumstances I think that SEQRA the part that is being developed, if it is going to be developed, we'll be discussing that with the Planning Board is something that will be done with the Planning Board, but, it does not deter this Board from making a decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I agree with you, but since the Notice of Disapproval reads a primary structure, that's the concern that we have at this point. MR. CUD DY: Well, that's why I wrote the letter. What has happened is, I wrote a letter, I wrote it ( ? ) and I really didn't get a response for two months and that's unfair to the applicant. It's a, I recognize everybody is busy, but, two months is a long time and he said, yes, that was the proper procedure, but, they just didn't get to it. I did have the meeting a week earlier and I said, I couldn't come to ( ), but, we're talking about 7 weeks which we weren't getting any response at all and that would be P0~e 66 - Hearing rlranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals unfair to this applicant to say, we couldn't have an interpretation (changing tape) In any event, I'm simply saying that I hope that the distance between the original letter of March 23, and now the middle of June, doesn't hurt the applicant because we tried to get that permit from the department, but we just didn't get it. At this time I'll give you the copy of the FCC letter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. You mean the letter from the Building Department which requested what, Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: The letter to the Building Department requested that he note that .we were looking for an interpretation and the interpretation had to do with, was a radio tower. I said this earlier, but I think it bears repeating in fairness to Mr. Rosen. Mr. Rosen came with me a year ago to this Building Department in Southold. Spoke to Mr. Fish. He said to us, that he couldn't accept an application because the town was sure to go for a moratorium which it did, and it would affect our application. We held off making an application. We went back as soon as it was passed. (Impossible to hear, microphone picking up all kinds of noises) We went to him and he said to us, you're telecommunications tower. I accepted that because I didn't have the Federal Act. Once I got the Federal Act, as soon as I got it, I read it and I went back to Mr. Fish. So, if this had not been dilatory and delaying in any sense what we've done, but I do think that we're possibly being penalized because the Building Inspector hasn't sent a letter. We thought at one time, that we only could come under the Telecommunications Act. It appears I think obviously at least to me, that we do not come under that Act and we tried to correct that. So, we made the application, we were told to make it that way and we found out that was in error. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just don't know how we can make a decision based upon a Notice of Disapproval which reads, primary structure and that's my concern. MR. CUDDY: Well he was going to write the letter but, I, you know obviously it's not true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. The only point I just want to make one more point and then you can. Remember, we have basically two Acts here. We have the Local Law and we have the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and in dealing with both of those, we'd make the interpretations is going to be forthcoming, alright, so that's where the problem lies at this juncture with me. Yes, Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm a little confuse because I know- when this application came into the building the Zoning Office, it came in on the 6th of February. There was no Notice of Disapproval when this came in from the Building Department. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: that. We have the files so I can check Pa~e 67 - Hearing ~lranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: When the Notice of Disapproval came in dated February 18, from the Building Department, it was to construct a Telecommunications Tower. There was no mention in there, of the office building. In fact, I don't remember the office building even being mentioned for over a month later until after we scheduled the hearing on it. So frankly I don't know that the office building or the plans for that would even ever were reviewed by the Building Department. Were they? MR. CUDDY: The office building is the existing structure. It's there, chopped down and we showed you that last time we were here. I said to you, we were going to take that building and we're going to take off the back and we're going to move the garage that was in the back on the west side, and we're going to have a 600 sq. ft. building by rebuilding the front of the building and that's what we indicated when we were here. We indicated to the Planning Department and I believe I indicated that to Mr. Fish. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't believe those plans have been reviewed by the Building Department. Here's how it affects us. I mean you can tell us what you plan to do with the building. As you know, we're not in a position to make a determination whether it's in compliance with the code and it would be very difficult for us. In your Memorandum of Law, the applicant intends to establish a small business office, though the plans for that office have never been reviewed by the Building Department. So all we have before us, so when you're talking about the office building, etcetera, we cannot entertain that aspect of this, unless you're going to go back to the Building Department and allow them to review those plans. We have an application and a Notice of Disapproval to construct a Telecommunications Tower, that's all. MR. CUDDY: When I was here, I believe that was April 14, the Board heard and received the Memorandum and now it's two months later and I'm surprised to be hearing this two months later. I would have understood if somebody asked me then. But, certainly our application has nothing to do with a business building that will be requiring anything from anybody. If you need us to show you - MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't know that. MR. CUDDY: Well we showed it to you on the plans. I showed it to Mr. Fish when I was there and no-one has suggested to me that that is a problem. I don't know that it is, but, if it is and someone will tell us, we'll try to address it. I will certainly go to Mr. Fish and have him do that, but, that's what I'm talking about though. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will take the responsibility on this, OK? MEMBER TORTORA: This was brought up to me, by the Chairman. This is not something I initiated by myself. P~e 68 - Hearing ri ~-anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What happened was we spent so much time and this is a true statement. We spent so much in studying the application, if it falls within, if it falls without, it doesn't fall in, it doesn't fall. To be honest with you, the only deliberation that we did on this, was completely split right down the middle, 2-2, and Mr. Homing was not there and that was at our last session that we actually discussed this. It was sometime later, that the issue which was approximately 3-4 days ago, that this issue of the Notice of Disapproval, came into light and we try and be fairly instinct with everything that we do and that's why I am apologizing to you because I could have done this, yes, a month ago. But, we have been toying with this issue and we have not been lacked and I assure you we have not been lacked in that issue. We have one member of the Board that has reviewed the entire Telecommunications Act of 1996. Has made reference to that Act as a, as a informational piece of literary pro sought of speak for the Board. That was submitted to the Town Attorney today. We discussed with the Town Attorney, in attorney-client privilege certain issues that were of concern to us, concerning this. I assure you we haven't been lacked. The only lacked, lackadaisical point was basically the fact, that when I went through the Code for the last time, when I went through the file for the last time that I picked this primary structure aspect which caused me to call the Building Inspector and he gratuitously called me back in a very short period of time and we discussed that issue. I am only asking you from a housing keeping point of view, to get that for us so that we know and, you know, I know that it's the front part of the house you intend to keep, but, please whatever he's requesting, do it for us, so that we can that,' and we are going to continue, as we will continue between now and the 2~.nd, to deal with that issue. In the interim, we are all looking at Local Law 16, which we have adopted of course as a Town White Law in ( ) of 1997 and we are still toying with the issue. And, Mr. Homing will be over on the 22nd, and we will still continue this process and that's all I .can tell you at this point. This is absolute sincerity on my part. I tell you that's where we are. The actual work that Ms. Collins has done is unbelievable in reference to her, you know, in looking at the Act itself. As you know, it's not an easy Act to follow. So, that's where we are and again had I, had this issue not come up, you know, had come up a week ago, I would have called you on the phone to tell you this, or written you a letter and fax it to you so that you didn't actually get it. I would of said, that I was putting it in the mail, but, I was faxing-it to you and this is a concern I have at this point, OK, with an ongoing hearing process. Thank you. Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Mr. Fohrkolb, how are you tonight? MR.' FOHRKOLB: Fine, how are you? Andrew Fohrkolb, 11650 Sound Avenue, Mattituck. As everybody knows I opposed the Communications Tower and right now I'm having a hard time digesting this tower being a VHF Tower, OK. As I told you before, I really think it's a self() tower in disguise, OK, based on the information and stuff that Mr. Rosen and his entourage have provided us, it doesn't mesh. He wants to put a three foot tall P~e 69 - Hearing l~anseripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals antenna on top of an 87 foot tower. Something is wrong here because the VHF they stationed the antennas especially a good one, you're talking 20-22 feet. I got a catalogue here tonight. I've looked you know, it's the installer's bible and I can't find the ( ) antenna for VHF in that band, the VHF band. I know that we're talking cell phone, we're talking PCS. Yeah, they make a 3 foot by 2 inch antenna. I know what it looks like and a, you know, that's what it looks like to me. It looks like a cell phone antenna. You know when you take a tower and you go up, VFH Tower, and you go up 87 feet, and you throw this three foot antenna off the top, something is wrong here, OK. He'd be better off going up 60 feet and putting a 22 foot antenna that gives you 6 or 7 feet to be gained and you're range is double. So, you know, I'm having a hard time with that. Also, when you talk cell phone, you talk your PCS, you know cellular phone operates every 900 megahertz, PCS you're talking 1.9 gigahertz, that's in a microwave band. When you're down that wall, let's say 80-90 feet and you're transmitting high power base gigahertz, I think there may be a health issue here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we haven't establish. us, it is not a cell phone antenna. He is telling MR. FOHRKOLB: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying that to you and I assure you that if this Board was to grant anything close to what this gentleman is asking for, I assure you it's going to be an antenna for something other than for a cell phone antenna.. MR. FOHRKOLB: OK, whose going to monitor that antenna to see thai later on the cell phone antenna transmittal apparatus doesn't go in there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we place restrictions adding on everything that we do, OK, and I'm not guaranty, you know, these are true premature statements. MR. FOHRKOLB: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, just so that you're aware of that, but, I assure you, that when we get to that point, OK, that is one worry you would not have to worry about. MR. FOHRKOLB: OK. is not a cell phone, antenna. Well if he's going to convince me, that this I'd tike to see some specifications on the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we have some in the file, but, anything that you want, we will ask the applicant to give us. MR. FOHRKOLB: OK, maybe what I'll do is I'll get together some a - P~e 70 - Hearing ~,anscripts June 11, 1998 -~Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you review the file, tell us what you exactly want, we'll ship it over to Mr. Rosen or his attorney, and then they'll get it back from us. MR. FOHRKOLB: Yeah, because I read the a, you know I got a copy today of all the a, you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The answer, good. MR. FOHRKOLB: The answer and quite frankly I'm really not satisfied with half of these answers, it really ( ) by me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you want to reduce anything to writing we'd be very happy to review that and then we you know, sen~ that over and whatever the case might be. You know, they can tell you in writing, what's germane to this particular application and what's not. MR. FOHRKOLB: Good, at least I hope nobody gets fooled here because you know, we're not talking about a local person putting up a ham radio antenna or local business man that puts a, you know, antenna on his roof or whatever. We're talking about, you know a superstructure here. This is no cheap proposition and you know, I can't, to me it really doesn't make a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. FOHRKOLB: Thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy can I just mentioned one word before you reflect what Mr. Fohrkolb was saying. We will discuss the area of SEQRA and how it pertains to this application with the Town Attorney, alright. We have not in the past closed hearings until we have gotten to what I construe to be a true railroad effects. We're both, the. SEQRA process and the variance and interpretation procedures have come to a point where they're actually are just abut attempting to meet. But, we will discuss that issue also with the Town Attorney and see where we are going on that aspect and I realize you're working independently with the Planning Board, alright, but, I just again want to reiterate that we're doing the best we possibly can in reference to reviewing this. Mr. Ocean you wanted to speak on this issue, or? This is Mr. Ocean. MR. OCEAN: I thought I would just make some remarks addressing, I'm sorry, I don't know your name. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fohrkolb. MR. OCEAN: Fohrkolb. His concern as to what .is happening here that this ~is a Cellular Tower in disguise which it isn't. The purpose of the tower is to provide communications from Mr. Rosen's business on the east end of the island. You homed in on a particular type of antenna. The truth of the matter is the particular type of antenna that actually will be used is at presently Pa~e 71 - Hearing ~anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals undefined and there are many choices. If it came down to us being exactly specific as to its length, width, height, and what it's made out of, we would come down to that and say, that's what we want to use and then everybody would know that we have a 4 foot antenna, 50 foot antenna, or for that matter antenna that doesn't even exceed the height of the tower which is what we are contemplating right now. We are considering right now using an antenna that is called a Yaki antenna which is a ( ) antenna, 13 DP which protrudes off the side of the tower and to visualize it, you would visualize a TV antenna turn 90 degrees so that the elements are vertical instead of parallel. That would provide gain from the tower in an arc of 270 degrees as the antenna rotates. This would enable Mr. Rosen to communicate very easily directly with the tower from Oceanside and then for the tower to then transmit the signal down as far as Montauk Point from that site. That's what we're trying to do here and we can discuss specific details about size of wires and strength of materials and wind resistance and this and that endlessly. We want a tower that works and that's safe and that provides the job, you know, that takes care of Mr. Rosen's business, you know, and that's the extent of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was brought to our attention, that if there was any collocation of anything, that it would have to be done when the design of the antenna was developed. MR. OCEAN: You're talking about the tower, not the antenna? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm talking about the tower, pardon me, yes. Assuming that, could this be changed to any type of the antenna with the tower, with a generic tower to -? MR. OCEAN: Well, antennas are in generally very light. The weigh practically nothing. Even the so-called type of VHF antenna which m familiar to you which you would find on ship board is relatively light. With more important is what we call the windage, the wind blowing of the antenna itself. But, I don't know what the loading on the tower is contemplating to be except this VHF antenna ( ).. I know some mention was made of the Fire Department antenna, but, I know nothing about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying that if the tower was built with this antenna on it, could it be converted to a cellular antenna? MR. OCEAN: A tower is a tower, it's just a structure. You can take any antenna and hang it on anything. If there was a sufficiently tall building, then he wouldn't need a tower. He'd put his antenna on top of the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: what you're saying? Because of the lack of weight of it, is MR. OCEAN: Yeah, well just lean the tower against the side of the building if you didn't want to put it on the roof, or you can attach P~a~e 72 - Hearing rl~anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals it to a chimney. Right now at this particular property in the industrial area is nothing there. So he's forced to put up the tower to get sufficient height to provide the intermediate point between the east end and Oceanside. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. I'm just trying to cover some of the questions that were asked, that's all. MR. OCEAN: can hang ( hold it. But a tower is a tower, it's just a structure. You ) on it, if you want to, you know, so long as it'll CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Ocean? (I have something to say, Jerry.) Yes, I'll be right with you Bill, hold on one second. Any questions, yes, George. Hold on we'll be right with you Bill. MEMBER HORNING: I'm not sure if this is for Mr. Ocean, or Mr. Cuddy, or some representative of the applicant. The first statement in the Notice of Disapproval says that, the proposed Telecommunications Tower being located on a nonconforming lot in an Llgn~ Industrial District is not permitted according to Section 100-165B. That part of the Article XVI Wireless Communications Act in that it states more specifically, the minimum lot size for the siting of the Telecommunications Tower shall be in accordance with the following: No tower can be built on a lot which is nonconforming in size to the requirements set forth below and the minimum lot size in the Industrial District it refers to the Bulk Schedule. In that Bulk Schedule it points out that you need 40,000 sq. ft. This parcel is 13,00 sq. ft. give or take. MEMBER TORTORA: It's actually 11. MEMBER HORNING: ll, OK. We have an undated Memorandum from the applicant in which he states that the Building Department itself appears uncertain as to this requirement, in that a further communication from that department, dated, March 27, 1998, advises that the tower is a permitted use. The tower being a permitted use in a Light Industrial District, on a conforming lot, goes on to say, implicit recognizing that the lot size is not contrary to the zoning requirements. Can you comment on that? MR. CUDDY: I think it's unfair, because I wrote it. can comment on it. So, maybe I MR. OCEAN: Yeah, please. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We certainly weren't asking you, Mr. Ocean, to comment on that issue. MR. CUDDY: The reason why I wrote that is because that really doesn't incorporate what the code says. The code says, that you go to the Bulk Schedule and if you look at it, it says exactly that, and if you go to the Bulk Schedule, the Bulk Schedule says, those that Pa~e 73 - Hearing ri ~.anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals are a preexisting usage, and this is a preexisting use, because this lot was in existence when I gave you the single and separate search prior to 1957. This lot doesn't have that requirement and I would point out to you something further, that perhaps hasn't been said, but, the town decided to put towers in industrial areas. Most of the land is as I view it, and I haven't done an inventory, but I've just looked at it, in industrial areas is nonconforming. It's not ( ). So, what the town has done, has said to us, put the tower here, but, if you take the Building Department's, one of the interpretation given, you shouldn't really be there. I'm saying, I think that the people who wrote the code knew better. The people who wrote the code said, you go to the Bulk Schedule. When we go to the Bulk Schedule, this lot is nonconforming and it fits anything you can get on it and thatts what it says in the Bulk Schedule. It's there, I mean, I don't know why the first Building Inspector, Mr. Fish, said one thing, and the second Building Inspector, who wrote the second letter, said another thing. But, it appears to me, that the second man was more right than the first one, because. I think he was saying, this is a permitted use and this is an appropriate use on this size lot and I think that this size lot, excuse me. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't believe that's what he said. One of the problems I'm having in this hearing is, you have some lot of things, that you had a conversation with Mr. Fish, and he said this, and he said that. This is all hearsay. You don't have an affidavit from Mr. Fish, you don't have an affidavit from Mr. Kassner, you don't have, and it, it really is hearsay. After the last hearing, I went back to Mr. Kassner, ( ) and we call him in here as a witness. We could call Gary Fish here, in here as a witness if necessary. But, I do have a problem when you keep saying, they say this, and we go back and we talk to them, I didn't say that. We have in front of us, a Notice of Disapproval, it says this. If Mr. Fish or any other representative in this town has said anything else to you, contrary to what is before us, give us an affidavit, but, we begin to go around in circles with, he said, and then the Board Members will go back the next day and it turns out what you're saying is a mis, they maintain is a misconstruction of what they said. So, it puts us in a awkward position. MR. CUDDY: I don't have any problem saying whatever I said, because I'm lawyer. If you want me to be under oath, I'll be under oath. Anything I have said to you, is absolutely what I've heard from then. They may come to you and say, I don't think I said that. I'm saying, I think they did, but, I don't think we have any problem right here. There's two, we're talking about two different things. We're talking first, that the disapproval in front of you says one thing, and then I said to you, a different Building Inspector then wrote a second letter and he said something entirely different and I pointed that out to you, and I'm saying a third thing To you is that contrary to what the first Building Inspector said, the Bulk Schedule allows us to have this kind of tower. That's my point. I don't think that' any of us have had any differences over that. P~e 74 - Hearing kranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: What did the, there's only one think with what you just said, and that's in this law. It says, the minimal lot size of site and telecommunications shall be in accordance with .the following: No tower can be built on a lot which is nonconforming in size to the requirement set forth below. And, this is in reference to what George had said. There is no other section in our code, that says, no something or other can be built on a nonconforming lot and this Board that issue did come up before this Board before, Mr. Cuddy, and the Board did give an opinion on that, because it is so specific within the code. MR. CUDDY: But that fails to read the entire section because you, I don't have it right in front of me, but, I think I know well enough that it goes beyond what you've just said, and says, per Bulk Schedule. There are two facets to it, one of them as I recall says, 5 acres and that's a different area, it's not an industrial area. When you get to this, it doesn't specify one acre, it doesn't specify 40,000 sq. ft., it says, as per the Bulk Schedule. You turn to the Bulk Schedule and this is permitted under that Bulk Schedule and that's the position that we've been through. MEMBER TORTORA: I won't argue with you. MR. CUDDY: (). I know, but, I'm just pointing out to you how we got CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: sorry Bill. MR. GUYTAN: My name is Bill Guytan. I guess ali of you know who I am by now. How many towers have been built since our new Tower Law has taken affect? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: None. MR. GUYTAN: What's he talking about then? Anyway, has the Town of Southold really need this thing? We need something like this? An eyesore that has no benefit. What benefit is the Town of Southold going to get out of this tower or any other tower? That's my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I think to be honest with you, and I'm not here to answer every question of everybody, but, this is a private individual who is applying for an application like anybody else, as a contractor vendee to a piece of property and it's incumbent upon us to hear the application, - MR. GUYTAN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To keep it within the confines of what we are requesting, and what he is requesting and that's basically what we're asking him to do tonight from a housekeeping point of view. In reference to your question of the other antenna applications, pardon me, they are exactly the same. The law is specific and Mr. Cuddy as well as Mrs. Tortora are absolutely correct. The law Ps~e 75 - Hearing rl~:anscriPts June ]1, 1998 - Board of Appeals asked for them to be in Light Industrial Districts. It doesn't prohibit, but, it frowns for them to be in Residential Districts and Agricultural Districts, and so, we're very simply hearing this testimony on that basis. MR. GUYTAN: OK, we have over 500 people who don't want this and that's only personal signatures, they don't want any part of this. The other thing is that this tower, how can you possibly say, it's not a Telecommunications Tower? Does he have a wire from each truck to the station? It's telecommunications, I don't care what code you put it under, what name you put it under, it's just schematics, that's all. All I have to say is that and I want to thank you all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else for or against? Wait a minute Annie, this lady hasn't spoken. Yes ma'am? I'm going to have to ask you to come up here and use the mike because we can't hear you back there ma'am. How are you tonight? Could you just state your name again for the record? MRS. SIMMONS: My name is Mattie Simmons, I live in Mattituck, next door to this building. I do respect Mr. Rosen. I'm the one and my friend who lives there. So, we're the ones to have to put up with this. It has been my home, and my friend, my cousin, our home for many years, and mother's home, and I was here before the last meeting and I said, I have nothing new to say, no more than I'm against it. It's like intruding in our lives from the way that we live. We're good citizens and I repeat this, we have lived in Mattituck, my mother who passed away at the age of 103 years old, just before Christmas. We all lived here, my family. I think most of you know my family and it's sort of like intruding. I don't know the law as our lawyer here, and the rules and the regulations, but, let's get down to personally how we feel about something like this. And, I believe when I spoke the last time, I said how many of you who live in homes that you have cherished would love to have something like this come in next door to you? You know I love Mattituck. I'm a good citizen here and you know I don't think that many people regardless of race, or whatever, who if you mention the name Mattie Simmons, would not know me and my family. And so, I just want you to put yourselves in our place. I don't know what the law says, I understand some of it, some of it, I'm not a lawyer, I don't understand all of it, but, I do know how I feel, how my family feels, how my friends feel who come down to visit us from Queens, all parts, and we have a good life. But, with this, it would be entirely different. I'm not holding back, I'm telling it just as it is. So, if there's anything you can do, if things ean be changed, I think that the Board of Appeals, I know here you have a good record, I don't know how long, because when we built our home 22 years ago, was it commercial, they had ( )- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The code was, to answer your question Mrs. Simmons, I can't tell you exactly, it was probably industrial at one point, alright. P~age 76 - Hearing '~-anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. SIMMONS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the, during the 1989 code change, they lessen the impact of the zoning, but, you are still in a Light Industrial Zone District and again to answer the question, these towers in this law that was developed, in the latter 1997, does allow for these towers in this zone. I'm sure you were not aware of that when the law was being drafted. MRS. SIMMONS: There's no way that the law can be changed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, sure the law can be changed. You can petition the Town Board to go back and relook at the law. No question about it. Anything can be changed. MRS. SIMMONS: It can be changed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. SIMMONS: Well, I think when it comes to those who live there, it's very important. But to, you know, even if you don't live with something like this next door to you, you probably don't know the feeling. I think most people that are here can understand that. If you have a home and you love it, you've been there, you have friends who come in, you have children. I have grandchildren and with something like this, I wouldn't even feel safe to go into my backyard and I have a beautiful backyard and I have enjoyed it for years. This is all I want to say and I just appeal to you to see if you can do something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fred? Thank you, thank you for coming in.' FRED BOUFFARD: I have a question. I hear - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you don't mind. Can you use the mike for us please, if MR. BOUFFARD: The gentleman talks about the industrial area. They have to put the tower there. If I read the law properly, I think it saYs it just prefers them to be there. I don't think it's specific. Am I wrong? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: N0, no, we're just saying, that it's permitted there without a special permit, is what it is. MR. BOUFFARD: And it's also permitted in a residential area. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, by special permit, only by special permit. That's what I'm saying Fred. I'm not saying that this is a targeted area. Yes, Mr. Rosen? ~a~e 77 - Hearing r~ ~anscripts June ll, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ROSEN: I've been sitting here for two meetings now. I've kept my mouth shut. I have a lawyer who is talking for me. But, I've got to tell you. I'm a human being, just like everybody else here. These two ladies are north to me and Mr. Forkner, is that your name Forkner? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fohkolb. MR. ROSEN: What is it? MR. FORHKOLB: Forhkolb. There's three of us. MR. ROSEN: We've got something in common. I'll tell you about that later. These ladies and their grandchildren, mean more to me how they feel than this opposition. Let me tell you something, this tower is important to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to do it towards the Board, you can't speak to an individual. MR. ROSEN: This tower is important to me. I'm a business man just like the rest of you. I'm not hiding nothing, I own a trucking company. You are trying to commit every- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to face toward the Board, you can't point to audience members, alright. MR. ROSEN: This opposition is trying to convince everybody, that there's an ulterior motive. My application is here for my radio tower for ( ). Two, maybe three antennas for my frequency. I have no authorization to allow anybody to go up in this tower, except me. The opposition is trying to convince you, everybody else, that this is a tower in disguise. OK, let me tell you, I don't know if it would hold a cell site. That's not my problem. The Board that they have attained would have to make that decision. I'm not here for a cell site, but, I am here just for how they feel, OK, that bothers me. But I want to answer Fohkolb's question. Why is this tower so big, 80 feet up? Well he's talking through his head about a 20 DB antenna, that he's not familiar with at 80 feet. Let me explain. I'm sorry if I'm getting a little hot. After two meetings and this disappointment, I'm really upset. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I assume you assumed that we were going to close the hearing tonight? MR. ROSEN: No, no whenever it closed. I thought maybe I would get a decision. It's obvious I'm not and it does bother me, but, I'm a fighter. If I thought I was doing something wrong, I'd turn tail and walk. I put a lot of people away in my life. Do you hear me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, but, wait a minute. MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry when I say that, we have a similar job Fohkolb and me. P~a~e 78 - Hearing k~-anscripts June 11, ]998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you just calm down a little please. MR. ROSEN: What I'm saying is to answer his question, is why this tower is so monstrous, because it's between two houses and the bigger the tower can be the safer it's going to be from coming down. If we take a 60 or a 70, or an 80 foot tower, 2 foot square, it'll probably stand. But, there's a good possibility it will come down. You take a 5, 6 or 8 foot tower, the odds of it coming down near their home or their grandchildren is very remote, especially with the fact that I'm spending another $8,000 because of this particular property to have it so it can't possibly come down, but, it would bend at a 40 foot mark and just teeter. It couldn't come down on anybody. But I tell you, these two ladies are very sincere and I will do anything I can, as a matter of fact, I went out of my way and I met with these two ladies one day and I laid all my cards on the table with Mr. Booker here who owns the property. I'm not pulling any shenanigans. This tower by the grace of god goes up, Bell Atlantic, any cellular company isn't going on there. I have no right to say you can go on there. You have to make that and guess what, I have the end decision. You may come to me and say, can they go up? That doesn't mean they have to go up. It's my tower if it's granted. So again, you guys are talking down the wrong ( ), wrong alley. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I'm sorry if I was a little hot. It's been two long meetings and more delays and I'm not a bad person. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you would keep things ( issues. Yes Sir? I would just appreciate it if ) and not get into counter productive MR. FOHKOLB: No problem. Mr. RoSen I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intention. MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. MR. FOHKOLB: I said,. I apologize if I offended you, because that certainly wasn't my intention. I have a hard time, all the facts that you presented I have a hard time digesting. We all know that there's a dead zone for cellular communications in Mattituck, in the Mattituck area, OK. We have two attorneys sitting right here from NYNEX tonight, OK, taking notes, OK, because this is a hot topic, OK, there's a lot of money to be made in erecting a tower facility communications, OK, whether you make the application you get the tower up and then you sell the whole property, anything can be done. I know that you're concern about these women next door and if you really honestly have concern for them next door, I would suggest, that you find another siting because - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: he's saying, OK. Wait, wait, Marry just let him finish what MR. ROSEN: Please. P~ge 79 - Hearing 'lranscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. FOHKOLB: Let's not get off the beaten path here. Thi is a VHF radio application for a trucking company that delivers furniture, OK. I mean this is a major project here to put this tower up and apply for this variance and go you know, and he's you know, he has an attorney, you have your communication expert~ your engineer, I mean, wouldn't it be simpler to find a piece of property. I mean, Mr. Rosen's intention is coverage over the east end area, OK, not just specifically Mattituck. I mean we're talking about the east end area. I mean, man I'll tell you, there's some high bluffs over in Noyack, OK, you could probably just put it on top of a tree, and you'd have coverage that would be tremendous, you know. Mattituck you have sea level. Why would you pick a site like this and go through all this trouble? You know this is really hard for us to digest and you know as a resident in Southold Town and a close neighbor of where you want to put this tower up, I den't think it's appropriate and I just hope that you find an alternative site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Rosen? No, yes? MR. ROSEN: No, I'll spare the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you wouldn't mind. Thanks. Yes Sir? Let's rap it up if Fll make it real fast. My name is David Matthew Fohkolb. I live in the vicinity of that tower, 11600 Sound Avenue and I'm a member of the Peconie Amateur Radio Club. I'm also a licensed ham radio operator. My call is N2XJR, that's my license. I would like to say that basically I have a VHF repeater setup in the 144-148 band which is kind of pretty elose to what Mr. Rosen says he's going to put his antenna, his frequency on. At 40 feet above sea level, with about $1,000 worth of equipment, commercial equipment, commercial Motorola equipment, I get about 15 or 20 miles range at 40 feet above sea level with a cheap antenna. You know, Mr. Rosen is put,ting up this monstrous ( ) 85G antenna structure when I'm just putting in a pole on the top of my chimney at 40 feet above sea level. I'm getting a type of range so, I really don't understand it. It strikes me as peculiar that Mr. Rosen is putting this huge tower up to get 15 or 20 miles range out of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, he's going to Oeeanside. He's going To Oceanside with it. MR. DAVID FOHKOLB: He's going to talk to Oceanside? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. How far is that range Mr. Ocean? MR. OCEAN: Oeeanside to Mattituck is about 80 miles. MR. ROSEN: 80 to 70 miles. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Approximately between 60 to 70 and 80 miles. I just wanted you to clear that issue up, alright. Please, P.~a~e 80 - Hearing ri ~,anscripts June 11, 1998 - Board of Appeals I'm just trying to dovetail everything so we get. I have to say, that I really don't understand if you guys have questions of these gentlemen, why you don't contact them so that it gets all of the, you know, all of the issues out, regardless if it's this site or if they come back from another site sometime later. I'm not saying that we're, that there's no thoughts on that, but, I'm just saying, contact them and speak to them and find out exactly what the situation is. MR. DAVID FOHKOLB: It's just common sense to me, that it just seems that this is an awful big structure and a big setup just to do VHF Business Band Communications for a 15 or 20 mile range. It's like ludicrous to take such an expense when you can use a lot cheaper equipment at a lower height and get 15 or 20 miles range. That's what is stated in the paper that I read. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. DAVID FOHKOLB: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I guess at this juncture we'll recess the hearing and we will continue on July 23. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have a questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm sorry. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just need to get Mr. Conway's number and did we get the Memo from Brad? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we have it right here. afford us the telephone number, right, Mr. Cuddy? You'll MR. CUDDY: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing until July 23. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Anyone want to second that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Anybody want to second that? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolutions. End of hearings.